G7 Summit Japan 2023 by MG Publishing

COMMEMORATIVE BOOKAZINE 49TH G7 SUMMIT | MAY 2023

HIROSHIMA SUMMIT

STRENGTHENING ALLIANCES AND REACHING OUT TO THE GLOBAL SOUTH

ADV E RTI S EM ENT

MASTHEAD CEO & PUBLISHER ANA C. ROLD

SPECIAL SERIES EDITOR JEREMY FUGLEBERG

MANAGING EDITOR SHANE SZARKOWSKI

SPECIAL SERIES EDITOR WINONA ROYLANCE

SPECIAL SERIES EDITOR KELLY R. BAILEY

MULTIMEDIA MANAGER WHITNEY DEVRIES

ART DIRECTOR MARC GARFIELD

BOOK REVIEWER JOSHUA HUMINSKI

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD ANDREW M. BEATO FUMBI CHIMA DANTE A. DISPARTE KERSTIN EWELT

SIR IAN FORBES LISA GABLE GREG LEBEDEV ANITA MCBRIDE

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS ANDREA BONIME-BLANC LISA GABLE NISHANT LALWANI MARK LEONARD ULRICH MARSEILLE ELIA PRETO MARTINI CHRIS PATTEN MARIA RESSA DANI RODRIK ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER MICHAEL R. STRAIN SHANE SZARKOWSKI SADAF TAIMUR Copyright© by Diplomatic CourierTM and Medauras Global Publishing 2023. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Medauras Global and Diplomatic Courier. LEGAL NOTICE. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form—except brief excerpts for the purpose of review—without written consent from the publisher and authors. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication; however, the authors, Diplomatic Courier, and Medauras Global make no warranties, express or implied, in regards to the information and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions. EDITORIAL. The content represents the views of their authors and do not reflect those of the editors and the publishers. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication, however, Medauras Global and the Diplomatic Courier make no warranties, express or implied in regards to the information, and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions. PERMISSIONS. This publication cannot be reproduced without the permission of the authors and the publisher. For permissions please email: info@medauras.com with your written request.

ADV ERTI S EMENT

Contents G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

06 I Japan’s G7 Presidency in Tumultuous Times By: Shane Szarkowski

10 I Tyranny’s Propagandists Are Winning By: Maria Ressa & Nishant Lalwani

14 I Future-Proofing Democracy: Four Scenarios and a Plan

30 I The G7 Should Rethink its Health Care Approach with the Global South By: Ulrich Marseille

34 I Mob Diplomacy By: Mark Leonard

38 I The Sudan Crisis and the Risk of a Proxy War

By: Andrea Bonime-Blanc

By: Elia Preto Martini

10 I Macron in China

42 I What’s Next for Globalization?

By: Chris Patten

22 I Protecting Women’s Voices to Safeguard Resistance Movements By: Lisa Gable

26 I Kill the Chatbots? By: Michael R. Strain

By: Dani Rodrik

46 I The Complex Nexus of Climate Change, Health, and Geopolitical Conflict By: Sadaf Taimur

50 I Who Is Part of the Free World? By: Anne-Marie Slaughter

G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 5

Photo via Adobe Stock.

Japan’s G7 Presidency in Tumultuous Times By Shane Szarkowski 6 | DI PLOM AT IC COURIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

apan’s G7 presidency comes at an appropriate time. The world is an increasingly daunting, complex place with interrelated challenges (they feel more like comorbidities than discrete challenges) that verge on existential threats. Japan, for a host of reasons, has adopted a far more proactive approach to foreign policy. It’s a shift that arguably began in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, accelerated with more regional engagement in the 2010’s, and has extended to robust global engagement today. The Yoshida Doctrine today has been relegated to the role of historical curiosity, and that’s a good thing, given the need for robust global collaboration to meet daunting global challenges. At the same time, the sheer number of complex, interrelated global challenges makes it difficult to prioritize where to focus. As G7 president this year, shaping the agenda is one of the more important roles Japan has to play.

Setting the Agenda In January, Japan gave its first indications of where that focus will be. In an address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry Nishimura Yasutoshi laid out three core lessons from the turmoil of the last several years. Japan, Yasutoshi explained, intended to lean on those lessons while shaping the G7 agenda during its presidency. Those themes? •

The re-emergence of authoritarianism as a global threat to democratic norms;

•

Deterring geopolitical threats before they fully develop;

•

Building systemic economic resilience to meet present and future volatilities.

THE SHEER NUMBER OF COMPLEX, INTERRELATED GLOBAL CHALLENGES MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO PRIORITIZE WHERE TO FOCUS. AS G7 PRESIDENT THIS YEAR, SHAPING THE AGENDA IS ONE OF THE MORE IMPORTANT ROLES JAPAN HAS TO PLAY. Yasutoshi laid out Japan’s reasoning, with all three themes being underpinned by logics of economics. During the Cold War, poverty was considered to be the root of conflict, but in the last few decades it seems that economic globalization as practiced empowered authoritarian states in unprecedented ways, so that authoritarianism could once again threaten democracy. The same economic empowerment that allowed authoritarianism to conceptually threaten democratic norms allowed those governments to also grow their military might and project it regionally, creating a new wave of geopolitical threats and potential threats. Finally, economic globalization has increased volatility because of how interconnected we have all become. Any economic disruption— naturally occurring or triggered by a bad actor—has ripple effects that reach further than ever, making more resilient economic systems more important than ever. Framed this way, the logic makes sense. With an underlying theme of addressing how our economic systems are governed, Japan seemingly hoped to address three pressing problems simultaneously. Those themes are still valid as we head into summer in the Northern Hemisphere, but there have also been some disruptions in previous months that

G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 7

CHINA HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY ANTAGONISTIC WITH MILITARY DRILLS NEAR TAIWAN —PROMPTING MILITARY DISPLAYS IN TURN BY THE UNITED STATES. seems to have forced G7 leaders’ focus to broaden.

G7 Leaders Indicate Focal Points Japan laid out three broad themes to focus on at the start of its presidency. Those remain apparent in more recent commentary from Japanese and other G7 leaders on the group’s focal points this year.

Geopolitical Threat. Unsurprisingly, geopolitical threats are dominating the conversation. The war in Ukraine and concern over China’s increased regional assertiveness dominate the geopolitical conversation. China in particular has been at the forefront of chatter around the G7, which makes sense for two reasons. First, Japan is the G7 president so a greater focus on Asia Pacific issues is unsurprising. Second, China has been increasingly antagonistic with military drills near Taiwan—prompting military displays in turn by the United States. While Ukraine and China are sucking up most of the geopolitical attention, however, concern over the situation in Sudan has cropped up in G7 conversations recently.

Artificial Intelligence. During the first quarter of 2023 there wasn’t too much conversation about AI in the context of the G7, but in April with the surge of interest in ChatGPT, that changed. Japanese Prime Minister 8 | D I PLOM AT I C COU RIE R

Fumio Kishida in mid-April called for international rules on advanced AI such as ChatGPT—and indicated it would be high on the agenda for discussion at G7 convenings. In late April, digital ministers from G7 member states issued a joint statement calling for “riskbased” regulation of AI to guard against negative impacts of the technology while still preserving “an open and enabling environment” for innovation.

Climate Change. This is a natural discussion point for G7 leaders to focus on, and it has clear—if sometimes indirect—connections to all three themes Japan laid out in January for its presidency. In April it became more clear exactly what the G7’s focus would look like with climate change. A meeting of energy and climate ministers agreed to expedite the phasing out of coal while adopting more ambitious solar and wind power production targets. More broadly, the ministers released a joint communique laying out G7 priorities for identifying and combating challenges associated with climate change—notably energy security, the energy transition, ecological degradation, and creating sustainable net-zero value chains. We live in volatile times, so we should take comfort from the dynamic evolution of G7 priorities, even over the course of a few months. That dynamism also makes it more difficult to follow, which is a problem that needs addressing—healthy democracies need informed citizenry in order to hold their governments to account. Diplomatic Courier’s editorial team took the evolution of G7 priorities into account while curating this bookazine. We hope you find value in what we’ve put together. ***** About the author: Shane Szarkowski is the Managing Editor of Diplomatic Courier and Executive Director of World in 2050.

ADV ERTI S EMENT

IMF Publications… Keeping readers in touch with global economic issues

Visit Bookstore.imf.org I

Photo by Andrew Keymaster via Unsplash.

Tyranny’s Propagandists Are Winning By Maria Ressa and Nishant Lalwani

10 | D I PLOM AT I C COU RIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

f democracy had its own doomsday clock, it would be at two minutes to midnight. According to the most recent analysis by Varieties of Democracy (known as V-Dem), 72% of the world’s population lived in autocracies last year, compared to 50% a decade ago. For the first time in more than two decades, there are more authoritarian regimes than liberal democracies–and we are not doing enough to address this threat. The reversal has been stunning. In the Philippines, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr., won last year’s presidential election, 36 years after a popular revolt overthrew his father’s dictatorship. In Brazil, millions still refuse to accept former president Jair Bolsonaro’s defeat to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced its citizens to rise up against a genocidal occupier. And in Egypt, the last vestiges of resistance to autocracy have been forced into the shadows. On every continent, illiberal politicians are portraying democracy as an impractical historical relic. We must do more to stop this rapid democratic backsliding. During World War II, when democracy was similarly threatened, the f ree world came together to bring about a more peaceful international order. The multilateral system that was established in 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and by the creation of the United Nations the following year, led to decades of relative stability and international cooperation on human rights. We are at a similar moment today–with an important twist. The current conflict between autocracy and democracy is fought not only on the battlefield and in the political arena but also on social media and broadcast TV. If democracy is to prevail, credible, independent news media will be essential. Without trusted, impartial media, we cannot have shared facts; without shared facts, we cannot have political accountability or fair elections; and

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MORE THAN TWO DECADES, THERE ARE MORE AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES THAN LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES–AND WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH TO ADDRESS THIS THREAT. without fair elections, democracy cannot survive. And yet, just when we need it most, fact-based, public-interest journalism is dying out. The ongoing demise of advertising revenue has severely limited news outlets’ ability to inform citizens, hold the powerful to account, and tell important stories. The failure of journalism’s business model has led to two decades of collapsing revenues, cost-cutting, and layoffs. Thousands of news organizations across the world have shut down, while political actors have acquired others as a vehicle for spreading propaganda. China alone has spent an estimated $6.6 billion since 2009 on strengthening its international media influence, and Russia spent at least $1.5 billion last year on similar efforts. International efforts to support independent journalism have been paltry in comparison. According to a 2022 report by the Center for International Media Assistance, such funding amounted to $385 million in 2019–roughly 0.3% of overseas development assistance– and has not grown since then. This is woefully insufficient. Public and private funders must increase support for media organizations to at least 1% of global development assistance, thereby providing an additional $1 billion a year to support public-interest journalism. The defining challenge of our time, saving democracy, must be a collective G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 11

THOUSANDS OF NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE WORLD HAVE SHUT DOWN, WHILE POLITICAL ACTORS HAVE ACQUIRED OTHERS AS A VEHICLE FOR SPREADING PROPAGANDA. effort. Today, U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration will hold its second Summit for Democracy, which aims to make democracies “more responsive and resilient.” The first summit took place (virtually) in December 2021 and ended with several heads of state–including Biden, then-New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and French President Emmanuel Macron–committing to provide support to the International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM). IFPIM is a first-of-its-kind multilateral institution seeking to boost the economic resilience of news outlets and usher in a new paradigm for public-interest journalism within the next decade. Today, we will announce that IFPIM has received financial contributions of almost $50 million from 16 donors, including seven governments and nine firms and philanthropies. Many of these funders are contributing meaningfully to global media support for the first time. We will also announce our first cohort of grantees: since the last summit, IFPIM has funded 11 news outlets in ten countries, including Brazil, Ukraine, Niger, Tunisia, and Colombia. And yet our funds are still only a fraction of the billions autocrats spend on strengthening their networks for disseminating disinformation. At today’s summit, and throughout this year, democratic states must step up and commit significant funds to scale up 12 | D I PLOM AT I C COU RIE R

the fight for independent media. Wealthy democracies that have long understood the importance of a free press, including the G7 countries, must mobilize their vast resources to support the creation of a global information ecosystem that is more resilient to disinformation. Private firms, which rely on accurate information to thrive, must take a prominent role in this effort by committing capital to fix the market failure that has weakened public-interest journalism. Support for public-interest media is not nostalgia for some halcyon era. The ability to access real-time, accurate information is essential to a wellfunctioning democracy. To defend against the rising tide of authoritarianism, factbased news must be readily accessible to all. Liberal democracy’s doomsday clock is edging closer to midnight. We must act now—or regret our indecision during the long tyrannical darkness that follows. ***** About the authors: Maria Ressa, Co-Founder and Co-Chair of the International Fund for Public Interest Media, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021 for her work as an investigative journalist in the Philippines. Nishant Lalwani is CEO of the International Fund for Public Interest Media. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2023.

ADV ERTI S EMENT

Where nations connect Effective diplomacy requires influence and in DC’s international circles no place says influence like the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. Whether an economic summit, trade negotiation or a private diplomatic affair, our international trade experts and expansive network of leaders enable embassies and governments to amplify their message and strengthen their impact, locally and globally. Expand your reach. Grow your influence with us.

Photo by Joseph Chan via Unsplash.

Future-Proofing Democracy: Four Scenarios and a Plan By Andrea Bonime-Blanc 14 | D I PLOM AT I C COURIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

emocratic principles in the political realm look a lot like governance principles for organizations. Democratic nations operate with principles such as rule of law, protected human rights, and the separation/accountability of powers. Well-run organizations have good charters, bylaws, codes of conduct, and cultures that—when integrated with strategy and performance—serve a similar purpose. Democracy is threatened by autocracy and populism. Good organizational governance, meanwhile, is threatened by poor leadership and the absence of guardrails. Both democracy and good governance are critical to global wellbeing. People who live in democracies generally have better social, economic, educational, health, and longevity opportunities and outcomes than those in repressive

societies. The Global Happiness Index 2023 illustrates how people living in democracies tend to be happier than those living in autocracies. Democracy is not perfect and the potential to slide toward autocracy or plutocracy is always present (as we are experiencing in many democracies). Yet the last century has proven out Winston Churchill’s famous quote that “democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others”. So, let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Perfect democracy is hard to define, let alone achieve. But a good, operational democracy exists in many places—as the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Map below shows, distinguishing between four kinds of regimes—from authoritarian and hybrid to flawed and full democracies.

Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit 2023.

G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 15

Democracy was not a prevailing form of government until the past 50 years or so. And then waves of democratization occurred in the 1970s (Spain, Portugal, Greece), 1980s (Latin America, former USSR, Eastern Europe), 1990s (Asia and Af rica), 2000s (Middle East - Tunisia). But about 17 years ago, the globe

experienced a reversal with a rise in authoritarianism, populism, illiberal democracy, and the weakening of key democratic institutions including in long-standing democracies in Europe, the UK, and the U.S. Look at the 17-year decline in democracy tracked by expert think tank Freedom House below. A

closer look at this trajectory reveals a potential silver lining—though it’s too early to be certain. In 2023, Freedom House tracked the fewest instances of democratic decline in 17 years of tracking and quite a few more increases in democracy than we have seen in several years. The powerful example of Ukraine bravely defending its f ragile democracy under terrible circumstances (and making it stronger in the process) and that of Iranian girls and women

rising against their authoritarian fundamentalist oppressors, just to name two dramatic examples, have certainly provided global inspiration.

16 | D I PLOM AT I C COURIE R

Democracy Scenarios for the Next Decade Given the ongoing global megatrends we are experiencing—with profound geopolitical tectonic change, the rise of stakeholder capitalism, decline in

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

leadership and institutional trust, rise of complex interconnected global risk (including climate change and societal malaise) and truly explosive tech disruption—what does the trajectory of democracy over the next decade look like? From least to most likely, I propose that the future of democracy over the next decade may look a little like this:

Scenario 1: FRAGILITY

Fragility and Further Decline of Democracy. Democracies overall will continue to decline in quantity. The quality of democracy where it currently exists will continue to deteriorate, especially threatened by disinformation and disruptive tech.

Scenario 2: PROGRESS Democracy Returns!

Democracy makes a comeback with an appreciable increase in both the number of democracies around the world as well as the rejuvenation of existing democracies, all assisted by new tech and communications tools especially designed to combat disinformation.

Scenario 3: STRUGGLE Struggle to Maintain the Democratic Line.

Existing democracies will be muddling through with patches of internal progress but there will mostly be a struggle to maintain both the quantity and quality of democracy where it exists because of massive and exploding tech driven disinformation and misinformation.

Scenario 4: RESILIENCE

Stakeholders Rise to Rebuild Democracy. Stakeholders in all kinds of regimes —whether more democratic or more

DEMOCRACY WAS NOT A PREVAILING FORM OF GOVERNMENT UNTIL THE PAST 50 YEARS OR SO. AND THEN WAVES OF DEMOCRATIZATION OCCURRED IN THE 1970s (SPAIN, PORTUGAL, GREECE), 1980s (LATIN AMERICA, FORMER USSR, EASTERN EUROPE), 1990s (ASIA AND AFRICA), 2000s (MIDDLE EAST - TUNISIA). autocratic—will increasingly focus on deploying adaptable tech and communications tools to combat autocracy, disinformation and surveillance and maintain and build democracy resilience.

The Resilience Plan for Democracy Why is the fourth scenario the most likely? This is because we are seeing green shoots worldwide—as evidenced by the work of Freedom House and others—that show that societies that are heavily oppressed (like Iran) and others that are not but are losing their democracy (like the U.S.) are not going to sit still and take it anymore. As Martin Luther King once said: “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” Rephrasing this beautiful saying for democracy: “The arc of democratization is very long and full of setbacks, but it bends towards progress if and when societies are purposefully resilient.” About the author: Andrea Bonime-Blanc is the Founder and CEO of GEC Risk Advisory. G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 17

Photo by Joe Yong via Unsplash..

Macron in China By Chris Patten

18 | D I PLOM AT I C COURIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

he Communist Party of China has a way of flattering foreign leaders into supporting its policies, or at least remaining mum about them. This certainly seemed to be China’s goal when it rolled out the red carpet for French President Emmanuel Macron in early April. Even Macron himself seemed slightly embarrassed by the pageantry. Macron’s China trip has been widely derided in the West. Moreover, the statements he made during and after the visit about the relationship between France, the European Union, and China, and about Europe’s relationship with the United States and Taiwan, seemed to support the criticism that he lacks the determination required of a leader of a prominent liberal democracy at a time of rising authoritarianism. Macron’s remark that Europe must not become a “vassal” of the U.S. in its escalating rivalry with China has drawn criticism f rom politicians and commentators on both sides of the Atlantic. His divisive remarks seemed to evoke a Gaullist vision of France’s role in the world that feels more than a little outdated in the twenty-first century. Even Hubert Védrine, the foreign minister under President Jacques Chirac and a Macron supporter, acknowledged that France’s economy has “weakened too much” for it to reprise the leading global role that it played during Charles de Gaulle’s time. My inclination is to give Macron the benefit of the doubt. He is, after all, highly intelligent. But the more he said about China, the U.S., France, Europe, and Taiwan, the more I recalled my history teacher at Oxford. Once, when reading an essay I had written suggesting that Charlemagne could be called the founder of modern Europe, my teacher interrupted me and said, “I beg your pardon.” He advised me to avoid grandiloquence and let evidence, facts, and pragmatism do the talking. So, my charitable response

[MACRON’S] COMMENTS ON CHINA WERE WORSE, BECAUSE THEY GAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT EUROPE IS DIVIDED ON TAIWAN AND THAT EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO SUPPORT THE ISLAND IN THE EVENT OF A CHINESE INVASION. to Macron’s China trip is a respectful but stern “I beg your pardon.” Macron’s previous foray into bilateral diplomacy, when he tried to dissuade Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine in February 2022, already made European policymakers, especially Russia’s neighbors, shake their heads in disbelief. But his comments on China were worse, because they gave the impression that Europe is divided on Taiwan and that European countries would be reluctant to support the island in the event of a Chinese invasion. Moreover, while few would disagree with the notion that Europe should not be anyone’s “vassal,” Macron’s comment ignored the fundamental difference between America’s values and those of China. Despite its well-known flaws, the fact is that the U.S. has done much more than Europe (and France in particular) to help Ukraine. That makes the U.S. a good ally, not a feudal master. Claiming that Europe should seek “strategic autonomy,” as Macron does, is counterproductive. The U.S., unlike China, shares Europe’s fundamental value system. In order for those values to survive, liberal democracies must stick together. G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 19

CHINESE PRESIDENT XI JINPING HAS MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT HE CONSIDERS LIBERAL VALUES AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO CHINESE COMMUNISM AND TO AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES EVERYWHERE. China is far from being a liberal democracy. As such, its goal is to undermine and ultimately destroy the international order that was created in the aftermath of World War II by f ree and open societies to protect f ree and open societies. Chinese President Xi Jinping has made it abundantly clear that he considers liberal values an existential threat to Chinese communism and to authoritarian regimes everywhere. A day after Macron made his “vassal” remark, the Chinese legal scholar and dissident Xu Zhiyong was sentenced to 14 years in prison. Xu, a civil rights lawyer who has already been imprisoned twice (and tortured the second time), is the co-founder of the New Citizens’ Movement, which campaigned for government transparency and other liberal democratic values. His sentence, the latest development in the Chinese regime’s ongoing crackdown on public dissent, should serve as a stark reminder of what is at stake in the rivalry between China and the West. Given that the Communist regime considers him a seditious threat, Xu was not allowed to make a statement in court. But he did manage to dictate a short manifesto from his cell. In his statement, Xu describes his dream of a “beautiful, free, fair, and happy” China where rulers are “chosen by ballots, not violence.” Xu went on to advocate the rule of law, 20 | D I PLOM AT I C CO URIE R

fairness, and freedom of speech. “A democratic China must be realized in our time,” he wrote, “we cannot saddle the next generation with this duty.” He went on to argue that it is not “subversive” to champion democracy and freedom and evoked the sacrifice made by the students massacred in 1989 in Tiananmen Square. I cannot imagine that Macron would disagree with any part of Xu’s manifesto, which speaks to the universality of human rights and the aspiration for freedom. Is it impossible for Chinese society to resemble Xu’s vision? Is a democratic China a pipe dream that is incompatible with Chinese culture? The obvious answer to these questions is that the liberal-democratic version of China already exists. It is called Taiwan, and it must remain free. ***** About the author: Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is Chancellor of the University of Oxford. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2023.

ADV ERTI S EMENT

Creating value for Switzerland, its economy and citizens Cisco Country Digital Acceleration Strategy #CiscoCDA #SwissCDA C

CMY

www.cisco.ch/cda

Photo via Pixabay.

Protecting Women’s Voices to Safeguard Resistance Movements By Lisa Gable 22 | D IPLOM AT I C COU RIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

n February of 2022, Freedom House issued a warning about the global order being close to a tipping point and a call to action to democracy’s defenders to unite and commit to protecting rights of self-determination. The subsequent Russian invasion of Ukraine served as a catalyst for greater unity and commitment to defend freedom; however, the rights of women around the globe continue to plunge in countries where authoritarian governments and religious extremism preside. Through increased restrictions and physical violence, non-democratic governments are taking aggressive action to diminish the worth of women, denying their entitlement to recognition, and depriving them of the right to express themselves. Women’s growing power in elected office and business elsewhere has made it unsurprising that their accomplishments are highly feared, prompting repressive governments to suppress it. With the G7 convening, it is imperative to highlight the increasing trend of dehumanizing women, a worrying feature of the current surge in authoritarianism.

Private Networks Are Taking Action... One initiative, End Gender Apartheid, emphasizes that the situation of women in Iran and under the Taliban in Afghanistan is not just a matter of gender discrimination but rather a deliberate and systematic effort by these regimes to oppress women to reinforce their authority. The campaign’s aim is to expand the scope of moral, political, and legal approaches that can be deployed to galvanize international efforts and ultimately eradicate gender apartheid systems. In 2021, educated Afghan women witnessed their aspirations and expectations shattered in a matter of hours. Today, women in Afghanistan

SUPPORTING WOMEN WHO RESIST AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES IS NOT ONLY A MORAL IMPERATIVE, BUT IT IS ALSO A PRACTICAL ONE. PROMOTING GENDER EQUALITY AND EMPOWERING WOMEN IS ESSENTIAL FOR REDUCING POVERTY AND CONFLICT. are not allowed to leave their homes without a male escort, are no longer issued identification cards, and are denied the opportunity to attend school. Iranian mothers send their daughters to school with the constant worry of whether they will come back safely each day. There are reports of schoolgirls being subjected to poison gas attacks and instances of violence by morality police in Iran. One specific case that gained attention and led to the #WomenLifeFreedom movement was the beating of Mahsa Amini, who was accused of dressing inappropriately. The incidence of sexual assault as a means of domination is also increasing. In countries like Belarus, a “sisterhood behind bars,” consisting of businesswomen, elected officials and bloggers, has been documented by Eurozine. The BBC reports these dissidents are subjected to severe forms of torture, including rape. In response to this growing trend, the WDN 10 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence advocacy campaign was launched by the Women’s Democracy Network last year, with a focus on addressing violence against women in politics (VAWP).

G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 23

“Violence against women in politics is a moral and ethical failure on us as a society,” states Abdulla Shahid, UN General Assembly President. The campaign emphasizes that VAWP is a form of gender-based violence (GBV) that poses a significant threat to women’s political participation worldwide. Women activists, candidates, elected officials, and voters are targeted both online and offline. These violent attacks constitute direct infringement on women’s human right to participate politically and have their voices heard. VAWP takes various forms, including physical assault, sexual violence, forced disappearances and coercion. Not surprisingly, the increasing violence reduces participation levels of young women in the democratic process.

…So Must Governments Today, the resurgence of authoritarianism poses a significant threat to global stability and the protection of basic human liberties. As the G7 leaders convene to address this issue, they must prioritize the protection of the fundamental human rights of women to ensure global stability. The ongoing crisis in Afghanistan and other authoritarian regimes is a stark reminder of the consequences of denying women their freedoms. It is a wake-up call for the world to act swiftly and decisively to ensure that women, who constitute half of the global population, are not deprived of their natural rights.

Actions Governments Can Take Include: •

Officially acknowledge women’s resistance movements and support through funding and intelligence operations helping to amplify their message and increase their effectiveness.

•

Use both traditional and social media, as well as official

24 | D IPLOM AT I C CO URIE R

statements, to reveal and widely publicize the double standards of authoritarian regimes. •

Call for the institution of laws to protect women activists, political party supporters, candidates, judiciary members, voters, and politicians.

Supporting women who resist authoritarian regimes is not only a moral imperative, but it is also a practical one. Promoting gender equality and empowering women is essential for reducing poverty and conflict. It is a crucial step towards building more peaceful, stable, and prosperous societies. By prioritizing women’s rights and freedoms and supporting their active resistance to authoritarian regimes, we can undermine these corrosive governments, build popular support for democratic values, and promote greater participation in the political process. Let us join hands and work towards a future where all women are protected and empowered to play their full role in building prosperous and democratic societies. ***** About the author: Lisa Gable is a Diplomatic Courier Advisory Board member, Chairperson of World in 2050, and WSJ and USA Today best-selling author of “Turnaround: How to Change Course When Things Are Going South.”

ADV ERTI S EMENT

Learning Without Borders Contact Us: Smithsonian Science Education Center 901 D Street, SW Suite 704-B Washington, DC 20024 www.ssec.si.edu ScienceEducation@si.edu

Photo via Unsplash.

Kill the Chatbots? By Michael R. Strain

26 | D IPLOM AT I C COU RIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

he world has been dazzled by sudden major advances in artificial intelligence. But now some prominent and wellplaced people are responding with misguided demands to pull the emergency brake. An open letter calling “on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least six months the training of AI systems” has received thousands of signatures, including those of tech icons like Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak, many CEOs, and prominent scholars. Geoff rey Hinton, one of the pioneers of the “deep learning” methods behind the recent advances, was recently asked by CBS News about AI “wiping out humanity.” And, as always, many commentators fear that AI will eliminate the need for human workers. A 2022 Ipsos survey f inds that only around one-third of Americans think that AI-based products and services offer more benef its than drawbacks. Those calling for a pause emphasize that “generative AI” is different from anything that has come before. OpenAI’s ChatGPT is so advanced that it can convincingly converse with a human, draft essays better than many undergraduates, and write and debug computer code. The Financial Times recently found that ChatGPT (along with Bard, Google’s own experimental chatbot) can tell a joke at least passably well, write an advertising slogan, make stock picks, and imagine a conversation between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. It is understandable that a new technology with such seemingly vast powers would raise concerns. But much of the distress is misplaced. AI’s current detractors tend to understate the pace of technological change that advanced economies have already been living through. In 1970, U.S. employment was roughly evenly divided across occupations, with low-skill, mediumskill, and high-skill jobs accounting for, respectively, 31%, 38%, and 30% of

THOSE WHO ARE WORRIED ENOUGH ABOUT AI TO ADVOCATE SLAMMING ON THE BRAKES ARE LIKELY OVERSTATING THE SPEED WITH WHICH IT WILL TRANSFORM THE ECONOMY. AS IMPRESSIVE AS IT IS, CHATGPT GETS A LOT WRONG. total hours worked. A half-century later, middle-skill employment has fallen by an astonishing 15 percentage points. This change was largely the result of technological advances that allowed robots and software to perform tasks previously carried out by manufacturing workers and clerks. The hollowing out of the middle class is one of the most important economic developments in living memory. It has transformed life in the Rust Belt and in offices across the country, with profound effects on American society and politics. Even the newest technology is not as new as it seems. Chatbots and virtual assistants were commonplace before ChatGPT captured headlines. While your bank’s online customer-service assistant and your phone’s autocomplete function cannot pass the Turing test, both use naturallanguage processing to try to converse with you, just like ChatGPT. My kids try to talk to our Amazon Alexa the same way they try to talk to human beings. Those who are worried enough about AI to advocate slamming on the brakes are likely overstating the speed with which it will transform the economy. As impressive as it is, ChatGPT gets a lot wrong. When I entered the query, “Please let me know a G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 27

few articles Michael Strain has written about economics,” it came back with five articles. All seemed plausible, but I didn’t write any of them. For hospitals, law firms, newspapers, think tanks, universities, government agencies, and many other institutions, such errors will never be acceptable. The speed of the transformation will also be limited by barriers within businesses. Attorneys tell me that they don’t want their firms using these technologies because they cannot risk releasing confidential information online. The same will be true, for example, of hospitals and patient data. AI providers will create enterprise solutions. But if an AI solution cannot be trained on data f rom other firms in the same industry, will it be as powerful and useful as optimists suggest? And, as a general matter, it takes longer than people think for businesses to find ways to put new technologies to productive use. The open letter calls for a six-month pause to allow policymakers and regulators to catch up. But regulators are always playing catch-up, and if the biggest concerns about AI are valid, a six-month pause would be of little help. Moreover, if those concerns are indeed overblown, pausing could do lasting damage by undermining U.S. competitiveness or ceding the field to less responsible actors. The letter argues that if a pause “cannot be enacted quickly, governments should step in and institute a moratorium.” Good luck getting China to comply with that. Of course, there are times when governments would want to halt a technology’s development. But this is not one of them. Regulation should focus on how AI is used, not whether it can continue to develop. Once the technology is further along, it will become clearer how it should be regulated. Is there a chance that AI will “wipe out” humanity? A tiny one, I suppose. But generative AI would hardly be the first technology to imply that risk. 28 | D IPLOM AT I C COU RIE R

If there is one thing the doomsayers get right, it is that generative AI has the potential to affect large swaths of the economy—like electricity and the steam engine before it. I would not be surprised if AI eventually became as important as the smartphone or the web browser, with all that that entails for workers, consumers, and existing business models. The right response to economic disruption is not to stop the clock. Rather, policymakers should focus on finding ways to increase participation in economic life. Can earnings subsidies be better used to make work more financially attractive for people without college degrees? Can community colleges and training programs build skills that allow workers to use AI to increase their own productivity? What policies and institutions are standing in the way of greater economic participation? We must remember that creative destruction does not only destroy. It also creates, often in powerful and unexpected ways. Our future with AI will have storm clouds. But overall, it will be bright. ***** About the author: Michael R. Strain is Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2023.

ADV ERTI S EMENT

Events.

Join our events in 2023! w2050.org/membership

Photo via Adobe Stock.

The G7 Should Rethink its Health Care Approach with the Global South By Ulrich Marseille

30 | D IPLOM AT I C CO URIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

ountries of the Global North hold approximately half of all global wealth, while the great majority (around 80%, depending on your definition) live in the Global South. G7 governments, which are all part of the Global North, should take this major imbalance into consideration while convening this year. This imbalance is reflected in disparities in the health care systems of Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and South America versus those in North America and Europe. The COVID-19 pandemic vividly revealed the North-South health divide and the inherent deficiencies in the health systems of the Global South. It became clear that a lack of communitycentric approaches to health workers and networks, the absence of local production and supply chains, the ineffective gathering of health data and utilization of technology, and an insufficient investment in health inf rastructure from the public and private sectors were health gaps in the Global South that undermined its resiliency. To address this imbalance, G7 countries and those of the Global South must come together to elevate health as a critical issue, invest the necessary resources, and forge innovative solutions to overcome this shared healthcare challenge.

G7 COUNTRIES AND THOSE OF THE GLOBAL SOUTH MUST COME TOGETHER TO ELEVATE HEALTH AS A CRITICAL ISSUE, INVEST THE NECESSARY RESOURCES, AND FORGE INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO OVERCOME THIS SHARED HEALTHCARE CHALLENGE. disparities to a failure of the G7 countries to develop systematic and sustainable solutions to the disease, poverty, and lack of education that permeate the Global South, which make these countries less equipped to address major events that impact health outcomes, such as climate change, migration, drought, food scarcity, and a lack of infrastructure. While leaders from African countries, India, and other countries of the Global South were invited to the 2022 G7 Summit in Germany in an attempt to realign G7 priorities to meet the region’s diverse needs, health care was not a major issue on the agenda.

North-South Imbalance and Its Impact

Health Approaches for the Global South

There is little doubt that G7 nations and the Global North have made great advances in patient care, technology, infrastructure, funding, research and development, intellectual capital, and expertise in the health sector. Those advances aren’t necessarily available in the Global South, nor can the Global South ever fully benefit under the current framework. The health care workforce, scientific research, and health environment of the Global South is currently too dependent on the Global North. One can attribute these

The key to success in health care solutions in the Global South is collaboration, within the Global South and with the Global North. In the areas of research and development and health expertise, the most successful models come from North-South collaboration that is not predicated on solutions developed in the North, but rather balanced collaborations where high income nations advance capacity in low- and middle-income countries to promote innovation. It is no secret that health care in the Global South is chronically underfunded

G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 31

and that significant investments in health care, particularly in prevention, intervention, integrated environmental, social, and behavioral health can lead to better health outcomes and economic return on investment. Medical capacity, specifically flexible and cost-effective spaces for care, is also a priority issue for the Global South. Meeting rural and urban populations where they live is a priority for health in the Global South. Modular health facilities have been identified as a solution for their ability to integrate supply chain stakeholders with health and emergency response providers, to establish new principles for intergovernmental principles to support efficient logistics for mobile facilities, and to enhance sustainability. Finally, the ability of technology to support collaborative supply chains, networked research, and capacity building for scientific communities is critical. The lessons from previous efforts to support health care in the Global South are clear. Effective solutions are tailored to the Global South’s needs and implemented by its people to advance a model of resilience and sustainability independent of the Global North. Historically, the Global South has made significant contributions to world health and some of this innovation was on display during the COVID-19 Pandemic. What is needed now from the G7 and Global North is support for new health approaches that will unleash the potential of the Global South in its own right for the benefit of all. ***** About the author: Ulrich Marseille is CEO of Worldwide Hospitals, a mobile health care company, and established one of Germany’s leading health care networks, starting in 1984 prior to German reunification.

32 | D I PLOM AT I C COU RIE R

ADV ERTI S EMENT

Publications.

Read & Order all DC Special Editions www.diplomaticourier.com/print

Photo by Dillon Wanner via Unsplash.

Mob Diplomacy By Mark Leonard

34 | D I PLOM AT I C CO URIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

s sound, forward-looking foreign policy still possible? Talking to the statesmen, diplomats, intelligence operatives, and scholars gathered at the Munich Security Conference last week, I had my doubts. Consider U.S.-China relations. It was only a month ago that China’s vice premier, Liu He, gave a conciliatory speech that some observers saw as part of a charm offensive aimed at the West. After that, many hoped that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s previously planned trip to China this month would reduce tensions further, building on Liu’s own recent meeting with Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, as well as Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Joe Biden’s tête-à-tête in Bali in November. It is precisely because they are leaning into a souped-up competition that both sides seemed eager to put a ceiling on their rivalry, recognizing that more frequent contact is needed to guard against misunderstandings or accidental escalations. But then came the great Chinese balloon chase, which ended any notions of détente. As the large dirigible drifted across the United States, the Biden administration tried to hold its nerve; but public opinion soon exerted itself on national-security decision-making. On television, Twitter, and other media channels, Biden’s critics interpreted his restraint as weakness. Soon enough, Blinken’s trip to Beijing was postponed. The U.S. military downed the balloon a week after it appeared, then went on to destroy three more unidentif ied objects in U.S. airspace–all of which were later deemed most likely to have been “benign.” In response, Chinese defense off icials reportedly refused to take calls f rom their U.S. counterparts. The U.S. was not acting on intelligence of an imminent threat. There are thousands of balloons in the air on any given day, and the U.S. intelligence

OPEN, HONEST DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE WORLD’S TWO SUPERPOWERS HAS NEVER BEEN MORE NECESSARY. BUT THE NEED ALWAYS TO SIGNAL STRENGTH MAKES DIPLOMACY EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT. community agreed that the offending object posed no physical threat. But the Biden administration felt the need to appear strong in the eyes of the American public, and now the US-China relationship is on even shakier ground than it was before. The downing of the balloon evokes George Orwell’s poignant description of shooting an elephant in Burma in the 1920s. The young Orwell is handed a rifle and told to hunt down a rogue elephant, only to f ind that the animal is actually quite harmless. Nonetheless, he feels compelled to shoot it in order to appear decisive before the locals. “My whole life, every white man’s life in the East,” he later reflected, “was one long struggle not to be laughed at.” Open, honest dialogue between the world’s two superpowers has never been more necessary. But the need always to signal strength makes diplomacy exceedingly diff icult. This is certainly true in a media environment driven by Twitter and instant news alerts, which merely fuel further escalation. And while Xi may be sheltered f rom critical media and domestic opposition, he, too, faces growing pressure never to give an inch. High-prof ile Chinese academics such as Jin Canrong are sounding increasingly nationalistic–demanding, for example, that U.S. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy’s plane be forced down if he G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 35

attempts to follow through on a planned visit to Taiwan. When Wang Yi addressed the foreignpolicy grandees assembled in Munich, he did not mince words. America’s response to the balloon was “unbelievable, almost hysterical,” constituting an “excessive use of force, clearly [violating] … international law.” A hastily arranged meeting between Blinken and Wang on the sidelines of the conference produced only more mutual recrimination. To understand today’s geopolitical ructions, one must look beyond major powers and top strategists. Instead, public opinion now seems to be in the driver’s seat. And it’s a global phenomenon. As people in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Sub-Saharan Af rica come online, they are making themselves heard, and forcing their governments to incorporate their views into foreign-policy decisions. Crucially, most people across the Global South see the world very differently than those in the West do. New polling by the European Council on Foreign Relations f inds that while Europeans and Americans are converging on a more hawkish approach toward Russia, and want Ukraine to recover all its territory, people in China, India, Turkey, and (of course) Russia want the war to end as soon as possible, even if it means a Ukrainian defeat. An even bigger gulf is emerging over the shape of the global order. Europeans and Americans are anticipating the emergence of a bipolar world divided between China and the West, where many other countries will function as “swing states,” as during the Cold War. But others—including many in China—see the world heading toward f ragmentation, with multiple powers vying for influence. The question, then, is not which rival bloc to choose but how to work pragmatically with everyone to protect one’s own interests. Rather 36 | D I PLOM AT I C COU RIE R

than playing a tune written by others, most countries want to be able to sing their own song. Wang seemed to understand this in his speech at Munich—more than US Vice President Kamala Harris. She and other American speakers tried to rally the rest of the world behind the idea of democracy, while also calling for tribunals to prosecute Russian war crimes. But as welcome as this rhetoric is in Eastern Europe, it risks further alienating many others around the world. Not only do those countries see a double standard at work; they also bridle at the idea that they should be forced to choose a side in a conflict they didn’t cause. By contrast, Wang argued that all countries should be able to choose their own paths—even shrewdly expressing support for “European strategic autonomy.” And when he called for a peace plan for Ukraine, he was speaking not so much to the national leaders and diplomats in the Bayerischer Hof Conference Hall as to the rest of the world. He must surely know that a ceasef ire that entrenches Russian territorial gains would be unthinkable for Kyiv and is therefore not a serious proposition, but his goal is to appear reasonable and accuse Ukraine and its Western backers of escalation. Nowadays, all countries— even dictatorships—are playing to the crowd, and real diplomacy has been pushed to the margins. ***** About the author: Mark Leonard is Co-Founder and Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Project Syndicate offers its subscribers unrivalled access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including Nobel laureates, heads of state, business leaders, civic activists, and distinguished scholars.

PS Premium Subscription FOR UNLIMITED ACCESS What’s included? ‒ A print copy of every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine, including our annual fourth-quarter magazine, PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead

All subscriber-exclusive content, including:

‒ Full access to our digital magazine archive

‒ Insider Interviews, with leading thinkers on both sides of the table

‒ A one-year Digital gift subscription to give to the person of your choosing for each year you are a subscriber

‒ Longer Read extended commentaries ‒ Global Bookmark long-form book reviews

‒ Big Picture topical collections

‒ Exclusive access to PS Events

‒ Big Question short-form analysis and predictions

‒ Discounts on partner websites

‒ Say More contributor interviews

‒ A pop-up free reading experience

‒ Read More contributor book recommendations

DC 202 2

Diplomatic Courier members can save $35 on a new PS subscription by using this discount code at checkout

project-syndicate.org/subscribe

‒ The full PS archive

Photo via Unsplash.

The Sudan Crisis and the Risk of a Proxy War by Elia Preto Martini 38 | D I PLOM AT I C COU RIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

ince mid-April 2023, Sudan has plunged into a deep politicalmilitary crisis. The regular army, headed by Sudanese President Fattah al-Burhan, collided with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a parallel army commanded by Vice President Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo. The clashes quickly escalated into a civil war, with bombings, airstrikes, and artillery strikes that have killed more than 400 people. Al-Burhan and Dagalo have been members of Sudan’s ruling council— a body with a combination of civilian and military off icials—since 2019. They both deposed Sudan’s authoritarian President Omar al-Bashir. Since then, al-Burhan has emerged as the country’s de facto leader, ousting the semi-civilian government led by Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdo in 2021. In the weeks before the crisis erupted, relates between al-Burhan and Dagalo deteriorated due to the ability to agree on some critical issues, especially regarding how the RSF should be integrated into the regular army. Both sides blamed the other to have caused the war. Many regional and global actors, such as Germany, France, Italy, the United States, Egypt, and the Gulf states, reacted by closing embassies and evacuating their nationals. Meanwhile, waves of violence soon spread f rom the capital Khartoum to other cities in Sudan. In Kabkabiya, for example, three World Food Programme (WFP) employees have been killed. The United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) has already reported thousands of internally or externally displaced persons. UNHCR spokeswoman Olga Sarrado stated, “The f ighting looks set to trigger further displacement both within and outside the country.” The two main destinations are South Sudan and Chad, with the latter already hosting more than 400,000 Sudanese people.

RUSSIA AND SUDAN ARE DISCUSSING A GEOPOLITICAL DEAL ALLOWING MOSCOW TO BUILD A BASE ON THE RED SEA. THE RUSSIAN-BACKED WAGNER GROUP HAS ALSO ESTABLISHED ACTIVITIES IN THE COUNTRY’S GOLD MARKET. According to some international organizations, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the civil war happened in an already precarious situation in which “nearly 16 million people needed humanitarian assistance to meet basic human needs before this outbreak of violence.” As of late April 2023, 5 million Sudanese people out of 50 million are displaced. This data may increase even further in the coming weeks and months. Sudan is located in an unstable area bordering the Sahel region, the Horn of Af rica, and the Red Sea. Its neighborhoods, such as Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan, are experiencing humanitarian crises. For this reason, experts and analysts are seriously concerned about spillover effects over them. Sudan is currently involved in a dispute with Ethiopia and Egypt for the construction of a dam on the Nile River. The governments in Khartoum and Cairo fear that this new mega-inf rastructure project will drastically decrease their water access. A civil war could make the negotiations even more complex since a precise interlocutor would be missing, as occurred in Libya when two rival governments claimed authority over the country.

G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 39

The main foreign actors involved in the area are China, Russia, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The “Quad for Sudan,” which includes the U.S., the UK, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, tried to mediate between the sides after the outbreak of hostilities. In a telephone conversation, U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken reminded al-Burhan of his commitment to bringing democratic government back to the country. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have supported Sudan’s transition after 2019 to hinder Islamism’s spread in the Horn of Af rica. In addition, some UAE companies are involved in the construction of ports in Sudan, which makes this country a strong advocate for Sudanese political stability. Western powers, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, have tried to block Russian rising influence in the country. Russia and Sudan are discussing a geopolitical deal allowing Moscow to build a base on the Red Sea. The Russian-backed Wagner Group has also established activities in the country’s gold market. Considering what occurred in Libya, many experts fear that Sudan could plunge into a proxy war. On one side, regional powers, such as Egypt and the UAE, and Russia support the military regime to secure the agreements reached and prevent Islamism in the Horn of Af rica. Conversely, the United States and the West will promote peace dialogues toward restoring a civilian government. The Af rican Union held an urgent meeting on April 2023 to discuss this issue and then released a statement warning against any foreign interference, which is very likely to happen if the conflict is not resolved in the short term. It is hard to predict how the crisis will evolve at this stage. The international community, particularly the United 40 | D IPLOM AT I C CO URIE R

Nations, will surely play a central role in mediating between the sides and preventing a larger-scale escalation. However, the UN’s recent efforts on the Yemeni or Libyan dossiers were weak and tribal conflicts, lack of effective governance, and foreign influences still afflict these countries. If the outbreak of a proxy war will be prevented, Sudan’s international allies must push for an immediate truce and access to humanitarian aid, followed by political talks to cease hostilities permanently. If this situation is reached, the next step will be resuming political discussions to re-establish a civilian government in the long term. Ahmed Soliman and Yusuf Hassan have suggested the international community has two essential tools to influence the Sudan warlords. On one side, there is the economic influence exerted by the United Arab Emirates and China, who are prominent investors and leading trading partners. On the other side, there are some punitive measures, such as economic sanctions against the Sudanese off icial army, the RSF, and their leaders. ***** About the author: Elia Preto Martini is an Italian journalist covering European and Middle Eastern affairs.

The new genius is a collaborative genius

At Northwestern University’s Roberta Buffett Institute for Global Affairs, we believe that relationships among individuals and institutions—globally and locally—are what generate new knowledge that sparks solutions to global challenges. Learn more at buffett.northwestern.edu.

Photo via Pixabay.

What’s Next for Globalization? By Dani Rodrik

42 | D IPLOM AT I C CO URIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

he narrative that underpins the current global economic system is in the midst of a transformative plot twist. Since the end of World War II, the so called liberal international order has been premised on the free flow of goods, capital, and finance, but this arrangement now seems increasingly anachronistic. Every market order is supported by narratives–stories we tell ourselves about how the system works. This is especially true for the global economy, because, unlike individual countries, the world has no central government acting as rulemaker and enforcer. Taken together, these narratives help create and sustain the norms that keep the system running in an orderly fashion, telling governments what they should and should not do. And, when internalized, these norms undergird global markets in ways that international laws, trade treaties, and multilateral institutions cannot. Global narratives have shifted numerous times throughout history. Under the late-nineteenth-century gold standard, the global economy was viewed as a selfadjusting, self-equilibrating system in which stability was best achieved when governments did not interfere. Free capital movement, free trade, and sound macroeconomic policies, the thinking went, would achieve the best results for the world economy and individual countries alike. The collapse of the gold standard, together with the Great Depression, put a significant dent in this benign-markets narrative. The Bretton Woods regime that emerged after World War II, which relied on Keynesian macroeconomic management to stabilize the global economy, gave the state a much more prominent role. Only a strong welfare state could provide social insurance and support those who fell through the cracks of the market economy. The Bretton Woods system also altered the relationship between domestic and global interests. The world economy,

THE WORLD ECONOMY, BUILT ON A MODEL OF SHALLOW INTEGRATION, WAS SUBSERVIENT TO THE GOALS OF ENSURING FULL DOMESTIC EMPLOYMENT AND ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE SOCIETIES. built on a model of shallow integration, was subservient to the goals of ensuring full domestic employment and establishing equitable societies. Thanks to capital controls and a permissive international trade regime, countries could create social and economic institutions that suited their individual preferences and needs. The neoliberal hyper-globalization narrative that became dominant in the 1990s, with its preference for deep economic integration and the free flow of finance, was in many ways a return to the gold-standard narrative of benign and self-adjusting markets. It did, however, acknowledge a critical role for governments: to enforce the specific rules that made the world safe for large corporations and big banks. The benefits of benign markets were meant to extend beyond economics. The economic gains from hyper-globalization, neoliberals believed, would help to end international conflict and strengthen democratic forces around the world, especially in communist countries such as China. The hyper-globalization narrative neither denied the importance of social equity, environmental protection, and national security, nor contested governments’ responsibility to pursue them. But it assumed that these goals could be achieved through policy instruments that did not interfere with f ree trade G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 43

and f inance. Simply put, it would be possible to have one’s cake and eat it. And if the results were disappointing, as they turned out to be, the blame lay not with hyper-globalization, but with the absence of complementary and supporting policies in other domains. Hyper-globalization, in retreat since the 2008 f inancial crisis, ultimately failed because it could not overcome its inherent contradictions. Ultimately, the governments that gave corporations the power to write the narrative were unlikely to persuade that narrative’s authors to support domestic social and environmental agendas. As the world abandons hyperglobalization, what will replace it remains highly uncertain. One emerging economic-policy f ramework, which I have called “productivism,” emphasizes the role of governments in addressing inequality, public health, and the clean energy transition. By putting these neglected objectives f ront and center, productivism reasserts domestic political priorities without being inimical to an open world economy. The Bretton Woods regime has shown that policies that support cohesive national economies also help promote international trade and long term capital flows. Another emerging paradigm could be called hyper-realism, after the “realist” school of international relations. This narrative emphasizes the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and China and applies a zero sum logic to economic relations between major powers. The hyper-realist framework views economic interdependence not as a source of mutual gain but as a weapon that could be wielded to cripple one’s adversaries, as the U.S. did when it used export controls to block Chinese companies from accessing advanced semiconductors and the equipment to manufacture them. The future path of the world economy will depend on how these competing policy f rameworks play out on their 44 | D IPLOM AT I C CO URIE R

own and against each other. Given the overlap between the two when it comes to trade, governments will most likely adopt a more protectionist approach over the next few years and increasingly embrace reshoring, as well as other industrial policies that promote advanced manufacturing. Governments will also likely adopt more green policies that favor domestic producers, such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, or erect barriers at the border, as the European Union does through its carbon border adjustment mechanism. Such policies would serve both domestic and foreignpolicy agendas. Ultimately, however, geopolitical considerations will most likely push all other considerations aside, enabling the hyper-realist narrative to prevail. It is not clear, for example, that the focus on advanced manufacturing that characterizes the current resurgence of industrial policy will do much to reduce inequality within countries, given that the good jobs of the future are likely to come from service industries that have little to do with the competition against China. Enabling the national security establishments of the world’s major powers to hijack the economic narrative would endanger global stability. The result could be an increasingly dangerous world in which the ever present threat of a military conflict between the U.S. and China compels smaller countries to take sides in a fight that does not advance their own interests. We have a unique opportunity to right the wrongs of hyper-globalization and establish a better international order based on a vision of shared prosperity. We must not let great powers squander it. ***** About the author: Dani Rodrik is Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2023.

ADV ERTI S EMENT

WEB3 EDUCATION PROTOCOLS Learning Economy Foundation translates leading edge technologies into transformative learning and economic systems that promote equity, mobility, privacy, and individual agency to radically improve lives throughout the world. www.learningeconomy.io

Agency & Opportunity for All

Photo via Adobe Stock.

The Complex Nexus of Climate Change, Health, and Geopolitical Conflict By Sadaf Taimur

46 | D I PLOM AT I C CO URIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

limate change has already had demonstrable, far-reaching consequences on human health. Continued warming— and geopolitical conflict—are likely to exacerbate the situation critically, with an attendant increase in heatrelated illnesses, respiratory diseases, and the transmission of infectious diseases. Though not widely discussed, one of the most alarming impacts of climate change is the occurrence and spread of infectious diseases, which can lead to devastating epidemics that affect human health and the global economy. Changes in temperature and rainfall patterns can alter the distribution and abundance of disease vectors such as mosquitoes and ticks, leading to an increased risk of transmission of waterborne and foodborne diseases. A recent example of the devastating consequences of climate changeinduced epidemics is the dengue fever outbreak in Pakistan following the floods during the summer of 2022. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called the flooding—which has been directly attributed to climate change—a “monsoon on steroids.” This catastrophic event resulted in one-third of the country being submerged, affecting 33 million lives and causing the loss of over 1,700 lives, displacement of millions, and the destruction of homes, inf rastructure, and vast expanses of cropland.

How Climate Change Exacerbates Infectious Disease Yet the impacts of the disaster lingered long after the flood waters receded with the emergence of numerous infectious diseases. Thousands of Pakistani people were forced to cope with diseases like dengue fever and malaria To the extent that experts suggested dengue replaced COVID-19 for Pakistan. Mosquitoes that carry the dengue virus thrive in warm and humid environments.

ONE OF THE MOST ALARMING IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE OCCURRENCE AND SPREAD OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, WHICH CAN LEAD TO DEVASTATING EPIDEMICS THAT AFFECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. Increasing rainfall and warmer weather in many places will mean more breeding grounds for mosquitoes and more chances to spread disease. This reality was experienced firsthand by my family when my mother, a medical doctor on the frontlines, fell ill with dengue fever during the outbreak. Despite her dedication and hard work, her condition deteriorated rapidly, and she eventually passed away, leaving behind a devastated family and community that had lost a hero. This tragic event is a stark reminder that the impact of climate change on health cannot be overstated. As the world faces the consequences of a changing climate, it is essential to take immediate action to mitigate its effects and prevent future tragedies. The importance of global cooperation in addressing climate change and its impact on human health cannot be emphasized enough.

The Nexus with Geopolitical Conflict It is not difficult to imagine that for countries already experiencing cold conflicts or unrest, such epidemics and infectious diseases can escalate into a larger socio-economic crisis that may lead to violent conflicts between nations. The spread of infectious diseases is not limited to specific regions. Warmer

G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 47

temperatures, for instance, can allow disease-carrying mosquitoes to expand their range, potentially exposing new populations to diseases like dengue fever. This situation can result in the collapse of the country’s social and economic systems, leading to shortages in core needs like safe drinking water, food, health services, and shelter. Such basic resource scarcities can affect society, leading to competition between countries, and act as trigger points to transform cold conflicts or unrest into violent conflicts. Furthermore, the rise in communicable disease which attends these resource scarcities can lead to nationalistic sentiments, further fueling conflict.

diplomacy and water diplomacy can be used to build trust and cooperation, enhancing support for resilience in vulnerable countries.

The concept of tensions between countries over resources is particularly relevant when two countries share resources. In the cold conflict between India and Pakistan, for instance, there are reasons to worry that climate-induced water and resource scarcity could lead to violent war between two nucleararmed countries. Shared resources serve as a stark reminder that cooperation between nations is crucial, not only to increase resilience to disasters but also to prevent conflicts. Experience has shown that shared resources can contribute to conflict prevention, and they often serve as an entry point for sustained dialogue and cooperation.

About the author: Sadaf is a postdoctoral sustainability researcher at McGill University and holds a master’s and a doctorate degree in sustainability science from the University of Tokyo.

As the monsoon season approaches once again, it serves as a timely reminder that the climate-induced health crisis that we faced in the South Asian region last year can actually present an opportunity to catalyze a transformation toward a sustainable future. Building resilience is essential to limiting the impact of disasters associated with climate change, which could have negative implications for a nation’s stability and security. It’s clear that no single country can tackle these issues alone, so peace negotiations that prioritize approaches linking solutions to climate change, global health, energy, water, and political stability are crucial. For example, medical

48 | D I PLOM AT I C CO URIE R

Individualistic responses to climate change and its impacts results in conflict and loss. But with a cooperative and peace-building mindset, we can save our nations and protect our loved ones. By enhancing cooperation, we can make the region more resilient, not just to infectious diseases, but also to the other impacts of climate change. *****

ADV ERTI S EMENT

THE WORLD MEETS AT THE WILLARD.

D.C’s landmark hotel combines a sense of history and contemporary luxury with worldclass hospitality. Discerning guests from around the world enjoy the legendary Round Robin Bar, classic French fare at Café du Parc and the Willard’s elegant guest rooms and meeting spaces. This hotel was built to impress.

For more details or to make a reservation, please call 202.628.9100 or visit washington.intercontinental.com

In over 170 locations across the globe including HONG KONG • LONDON • NEW YORK • PARIS

Photo by Vony Razom via Unsplash.

Who Is Part of the Free World? By Anne-Marie Slaughter

50 | D I PLOM AT I C CO URIE R

G R O U P O F SEV EN S U MMI T I M AY 2023

n his 2022 State of the Union address, U.S. President Joe Biden accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of seeking “to shake the very foundations of the f ree world” with his invasion of Ukraine six days earlier. Putin believed that his “premeditated and totally unprovoked” attack on Ukraine would be met with little resistance. But, Biden proclaimed, “the f ree world is holding him accountable.” When Biden delivers his next State of the Union address on February 7, he will most likely tout all the ways the “f ree world” has continued to support Ukraine—and punish Putin—over the last year. NATO countries and their partners around the world have delivered massive amounts of weapons and other supplies to Ukrainian fighters, while absorbing millions of Ukrainian refugees. Those same countries have upheld—and even ratcheted up— sanctions on Russia, while finding ways to support those scrambling to wean themselves off of Russian energy. Biden’s pride in his administration’s response to Russia’s aggression—a response that will soon include the delivery of M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine— is justified. His determination to reinvigorate alliances and partnerships and cooperate closely on all major decisions is particularly impressive. But what exactly constitutes the “free world,” and how clearly can it be delineated from the “unf ree” world? And is support for Ukraine in its fight against Russia a fair litmus test for determining who belongs in which category? In one sense, Ukraine is undoubtedly on the frontier of the f ree world. Russia’s actions there—torturing and killing soldiers and civilians; destroying homes, businesses, and critical inf rastructure; forcing people to huddle in cold basements to escape bombardment— are blatant attacks on f reedom. And its ultimate objective—the conquest of an independent country, absorption of its

WHAT EXACTLY CONSTITUTES THE “FREE WORLD,” AND HOW CLEARLY CAN IT BE DELINEATED FROM THE “UNFREE” WORLD? AND IS SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE IN ITS FIGHT AGAINST RUSSIA A FAIR LITMUS TEST FOR DETERMINING WHO BELONGS IN WHICH CATEGORY? territory, and nullification of its national identity—is the very negation of freedom. In fiercely resisting Russian forces, Ukrainians are defending their freedom. But tyranny and conquest are not the only forms of unfreedom. In his 2021 memoir, Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen tells the story of a Muslim day laborer who was fatally attacked by a Hindu mob in 1944 on his way from a small job that he knew was dangerous but could not afford to pass up. Sen writes: “The incident dominated my thoughts for a long time, and I came to recognize the huge reach of poverty in robbing a person of all freedoms—even the freedom not to take a highly probable risk of being murdered.” Building on this insight, Sen—with the help of the philosopher Martha Nussbaum—concluded that leaders and policymakers should pursue “a view of development as an integrated process of expansion of substantive freedoms that connect with one another”: political freedoms, economic resources, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, and protective security. All of these freedoms are both ends and means, as they enable human beings to expand G7 SUMMIT 2023 | 51

their “capabilities” to “lead the kind of lives they value”—to live, learn, grow, work, and exercise agency in the world.

between East and West.” Jaishankar responded, “General, we have chosen. And we have chosen India.”

By this measure, Sen points out in his book Development as Freedom, the developed democracies of the free world are home to millions of unf ree people— people whose capabilities are stunted by everything from poverty and inadequate public goods to political and social marginalization. Conversely, millions of people in countries that the U.S. might deride as autocratic enjoy some economic freedoms, social opportunities, and security.

In Jaishankar’s view, the Ukraine war might enable more countries to choose themselves. He predicts that the conflict will transform a world order that is still “deeply Western”—in which “Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s” —into a world of “multi-alignment,” where countries are free to pursue their “preferences and interests.”

Recognizing this reality does not mean accepting that there is a necessary trade-off between political f reedom and economic growth, as Chinese and other autocratic leaders have often insisted. It does, however, complicate the distinction between the “free” and “unfree” worlds. India—Sen’s home country and the world’s largest democracy—is a case in point. When Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, India was classified as “free” in Freedom House’s annual country rankings, and remained so through 2020. It is now classified as “partly free,” in the face of officially sanctioned anti-Muslim bigotry and increased restrictions on civil rights and liberties. On the other hand, according to a United Nations Development Program report, India lifted 415 million people out of poverty between 2006 and 2021. India has refused to side with Russia or NATO in the Ukraine war. It has drawn steadily closer to the U.S., Japan, and Australia through the increasingly formalized Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, but has also steadily increased its oil imports from Russia, which is now its top supplier. Retired U.S. General David Petraeus recently recalled that he told Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, then serving as India’s ambassador to the U.S., that as a member of the Quad, India must “make a choice 52 | D IPLOM AT I C COU RIE R

India is not alone. Countries across Af rica, Asia, and Latin America refused to vote to expel Russia f rom the United Nations Human Rights Council last April. They blame Western sanctions as much as Russian aggression for the soaring food and energy prices that continue to cause them tremendous hardship. As they see it, it is yet another case of Europe and the U.S. making their problems the world’s problems. If he wishes to speak to a truly global audience, Biden should consider leaving behind the twentieth-century definition of the “free world” and embrace freedom of many different kinds. The U.S. and its allies, he might say, are fighting to free the Ukrainian people, and people everywhere, from the shackles of conquest, domination, poverty, hunger, ignorance, prejudice, and deprivation. We will seek allies where we can find them in all these fights. ***** About the author: Anne-Marie Slaughter is CEO of New America and the author of Renewal: From Crisis to Transformation in Our Lives, Work, and Politics (Princeton University Press, 2021). Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2023.

ADV ERTI S EM ENT

GLOBAL IMPACT FROM THE HEART OF AUSTRIA For 75 years, Salzburg Global Seminar has worked for a creative, just and sustainable world. Schloss Leopoldskron inspires people and institutions on every continent. Our art of hosting opens new horizons and changes lives.

www.SalzburgGlobal.org

SGS_Ad_DiplCourier_170822.indd 2

www.SchlossLeopoldskron.com

17.08.22 14:12