The article was besides published on Onet Premium on 11.02.2024.
Globalisation, with the leadership of the United States as the only planet power (and thus in the model widespread after the Cold War), contributed to the growth of global prosperity, a crucial decline in global inequality and a mostly strong simplification in utmost poorness on Earth. Of course, this was a mostly "credited" improvement that has so far been unprecedented in the exploitation of our planet's resources. But it was only present that we realized, in common terms, the effects of climate change and the environment.
However, there was no another major issue, which, as was then assumed, would almost "solve itself" with the liberalisation of the planet economy. We have failed to advance democratic values and liberal order. global players did not abandon authoritarian systems (mainly China) or abandoned them just for show (such as façade democracy in Russia). These states, seemingly accepting the global rules of the game, continually built up economical and military potential, eagerly hiding their actual intentions. To realize the spirit of society and the mentality of the east elite, you can paraphrase a quote from Art of War Sun Tzu – “Do not show your enemies your actual intentions and forces” or Russian proverbs: “You are going quieter, you will inactive arrive.”
In front of our eyes, a global order is falling apart, which we have become accustomed to. The main function of the US-Europe duo in planet governance is being undermined. And although the current model has brought quite a few benefits, it starts to be a burden – besides for the West itself, and above all for the "world sheriff" – the USA.
In the West, the power of mentality and cultural codes was underestimated, somewhat naively reasoning that the growth of prosperity would, as it were, consequence in the adoption of democratic values – at least in the longer word (the celebrated "end of history" by F. Fukuyama). The economical benefits of the fresh order of the planet were so large for Western countries (including the USA above all) that even though there were any "alarm signals" it was hard to reject this path. This is why it has frequently been overlooked both the public failure to respect free trade rules (mainly the theft of intellectual value but besides hidden subsidies) and the violation of human rights and democratic principles (the pursuit of authoritarianism and political control and political repression, etc.). In return, the West was given access to highly lucrative outlets and opportunities for profitable investment (relocating production). Who wouldn't be tempted?
Authoritarian tendencies are now observed in many countries of the world. Globalisation has not contributed to the spread of democratic values – as initially assumed – and even led to immense interior tensions in Western countries.
What did that lead to? Where is the planet today? The countries of the Far East, including China in particular, have definitely gained strength. In 1960, the United States was liable for as much as 40% of the world's economy, with 4% attributed to China. By 2021, however, this share was only 24% for the US and 18% for the mediate State. While the level of political authoritarianism in China is inactive high, in fresh years it has even intensified (e.g. the elimination of Xi Jinping's word of office or the introduction of a digital social control system). Had it not been for the supply chains to break (in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic) and turn towards geopolitical divisions (as a consequence of Russia's aggression towards Ukraine), authoritarian states could in any 20 to 30 years have clearly exceeded the possible of democratic initiators of globalisation. The West would have lost any area for manoeuvre by being “in the underprivileged”.
This is actually the last minute to turn back the negative course of past – hence the clear anticipation by the United States and the European Union present of real compliance with global rules, cutting off the countries of aggressors (such as Russia) from the anticipation of presence on their markets, and preventing the export of advanced Western technology. In a decade or two, it'd be besides late to react. Now there are quite a few instruments – these include direct economical sanctions (such as the West's presently applied to Russia), strong public support for its own economy (American) Inflation simplification Act, European Green Deal Industrial Plan whether EUR 200 billion allocated by the German government to combat energy prices), blockade of Western exports, advanced technologies (U.S. Chips Act) or tightening of customs duties and trade tariffs.
Climate policy besides seems to be an crucial component of this geopolitical gameplay – bearing, to a large extent, the characteristics of economical policy. gathering advanced environmental standards is not easy and requires immense investments. In addition, you besides request a complex and costly audit strategy to prove that what you have implemented is real action and not greenwashing. If the Western (including the EU in particular) succeeds in introducing a full-scale "green governance" and then tightening import duties (extension and reinforcement of environmental taxation at the EU-CBAM borders), it is very possible that there will be an implosion of the East.
Climate policy seems to be an crucial component of geopolitical play – bearing to a large degree the characteristics of economical policy. If the West (including, above all, the EU) effectively introduces a "green governance" on a full scale and then tightens import duties (enlargement and reinforcement of the environmental taxation at the EU-CBAM borders), it is very possible that the implosion of the East will occur.
Countries of that region, including China in particular, have built tremendous production possible to be able to service as factories in the world. But what happens erstwhile they start to lose their jobs in bulk? Maintaining large-scale production facilities is highly costly. In addition, the expectations of the Chinese themselves have grown and the origin of growth in the form of income from Western markets may become dry. Production capacity will besides increasingly be reduced by demography (stricting staff resources). Deflation and the housing marketplace crisis have already appeared in China. Can the mediate State, accustomed to continuous growth, deal with the fresh situation? Will it not lead to social unrest and destabilisation of the state?
As long as globalisation was a guarantor of global peace and fresh emerging markets provided Western companies with besides much for goods, many things were overlooked. However, the world's order to date has ceased to be a warrant of non-aggression – the appearance of the actual “face” of the East (the actual aggression of Vladimir Putin, but besides the tightening of rhetoric by Xi Jinping) has shown that there is no peaceful coexistence – any weakness of the West will be utilized against it (this is besides 1 of the rules of the war already invoked by Sun Tzu).
It is besides impossible to ignore another paradigm change. The increase in global consumption from the asset (in the form of outlets) has become a real problem – we have encountered a barrier to the depletion of the world's resources, at the same time affecting the climate of our planet besides strongly. Today, rather, this regulation of consumption is becoming an increasingly popular thought in Western culture. Moreover, following the current way of highly developed economies (growing consumption) through the East would be an unbearable burden for the planet and would bury any climate targets. There is no limitless increase in production and consumption in these markets in the interests of the West.
The discovery of their own deposits (mainly the USA) and the transition to renewable energy sources (mostly the EU) and the improvement of automation and robotics (supported by artificial intelligence) may consequence in the West no longer needing the East (its natural materials and inexpensive labour). Especially due to the fact that the place of communicative about the "business partnership" was a cold calculation (is it worth strengthening the real opponent?).
Supporting the economy with its own deposits (US) or the transition to renewable energy sources (EU) and the improvement of automation and robotics (supported by artificial intelligence) can make the West no longer request the East (its natural materials and inexpensive labour).
The interior origin besides leads to changing the rules of the game. 1 of the effects of transferring production and capital to the East was the disappearance (mainly in the US) of the mediate class and the related sense of failure of erstwhile prestige and importance. This created a social space for respondents and populism (the slogan to make America "again great") and led to deep economical and political polarisation – which further weakened (from the inside) the liberalist order.
Has the East already become strong adequate to decision to autonomous improvement and replace exports to Western countries by building its own interior market? This is not at all definite. If so, we will deal with a multipolar planet to which de facto We've been going so far. However, we may besides be faced with a serious reversal and reversal of trends. Finally, democratic and free-market countries, given their better ability to allocate resources, supported by creativity, the strength of institutions and human capital, should have greater capacity to develop. Especially erstwhile unlocking the possible of artificial intelligence and resource and energy independence. The latest macroeconomic data show that half of the fresh economical growth is accounted for by the United States, the weight of the European Union has stopped falling, and China's participation in the global economy, for the first time in many decades, has shrunk from 18.4% to 17%. So possibly things aren't settled?
Is the West able to re-use its strengths and set up “game rules”? Can this origin the implosion of the East, which is not necessarily as strong as it seems?
But if the West manages to reverse global tendencies and start moving back to a unipolar planet under its own leadership, does this not origin the East to respond aggressively? This, erstwhile calculating its improvement opportunities, may consider that it has small to lose and will hazard global armed conflict – specified a anticipation must be taken into account. Putin did not accidentally attack at the time of Russia's failure of prospects for economical relations with Europe. His biggest oil and gas customer, of whom the proceeds from the sale retains the full state apparatus (i.e. the strength of his power), yet stated that he withdraws from the purchases in the 10-20 period, clearly indicating his goals in the form of FitFor55 and the thought of full EU climate neutrality.
What can all this mean for Poland? We have already experienced life as part of the east authoritarian government and, despite all the predicaments of the Western Order, it is most likely better for us to be part of the block of democratic regulation of law. Although the West besides has its dark sides and being part of it requires designation of a hard game of interests, it is inactive much better space for life and improvement than the east improvement framework. Just learn to play the Western game and win by the rules, not be offended by the system. Especially since the alternate is only one, and having specified historical experiences as Poland, it is impossible to consider investigating this road again...
