Targeting Solutions for the Current U.S. - China Geopolitical Competition - Just the ‘First Cut’

So, a ‘wee bit late’ in generating and posting this latest ‘weekend’ Substack Post for Alan’s Newsletter. But I have a reasonable explanation. At least I think I do. I am just returned from several productive days in Boston where several principals of the China-West Dialogue (CWD) gathered. Our two-days of discussions centered on the character of China-West relations and the means to improve, in particular, U.S.-China interactions and the spillover impacts on the Global Order from difficult U.S.-China relations.

Now, CWD is all about the concerns currently defining major power relations – none more so than U.S.-China relations and their impact on the Global Order. And, as a reminder, you can catch up on CWD activities at the Global Summitry Project, GSP website. If you have a question(s), or comments feel free to leave your thoughts with us.

Now, as for our starting point for our two days of discussion. Well, all of us appeared to agree that we set as a central target for our global order assessments - ‘how to maintain a ‘single international community’. None of us were at all sanguine over the fragmentation of the international system in the face of growing U.S.-China competition and the negative impacts of Russian aggression against Ukraine. And yet we recognize the growing possibility of global order fragmentation in the light of the present behavior of a number of the major powers. So, how will it be possible to maintain a single international community? Well, let me trace some of our current thinking in this ‘first cut’ following our discussions.

If maintaining the single international community is the goal, what are the means? How do we ensure collective effort that engages the U.S. and China and other major actors - major powers, emerging powers, middle powers, powers from the Global North and the Global South. Furthermore, how do we encourage multilateral and regional institutions as well as substate and non-state actors to pull towards such a global order structure.

But just before we go there, let’s first declare that both leading powers – the United States and China – give much attention to their own ‘reputational capital’. And it is event that current actions in this increasingly fraught relationship have frayed the reputational capital of both. So China through ‘wolf warrior’ actions taken against eastern European countries and Australia – taking just two instances – have hurt China. As for the United States presumptions about support for the U.S. and Europe, especially around Global South powers, have undermined various U.S. relations. Both, then, need to ‘stop the slide’.

So, what are some of the means of sustaining, and even enhancing, a ‘single international community’? One potential direction is to take steps that visibly promote a revitalization of the rules-based international order (RBIO). The fraying of the RBIO is only too evident. So, U.S.-China engagement, with others, to declare renewed support for: the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocols on Protection of Civilians and Combatants in War, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Standards for Protecting People and the Environment, including the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants would be a visible action by the leading powers and others to support global governance and reinforce a single international community.

Organizing a plurilateral effort, at least, that includes China and the United States to initiate a ceasefire, armistice, or ‘peace plan’ for the Russia-Ukraine war would be another singular effort to be advanced when appropriate. While the need to encourage an end to hostilities is required, the focus on security issues should probably only approached as other efforts show some ‘forward movement’. But in the lead is this effort.

Additionally we would encourage at least plurilateral efforts - including, of course, China and the U.S., that would advance international regulatory and technical initiatives. Thus, for instance we urge engagement in the DEPA, the digital economy partnership alliance, formed first by Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. DEPA builds upon the digital trade or e-commerce chapters of existing free trade agreements, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), adding enhanced commitments on facilitating digital trade and multi-party cooperation on a range of advanced technologies. If not CPTPP, initially, as it is evident that the U.S. is not currently in the ‘trade game’ then at least initiatives like DEPA.

One final institutional goal could be a ‘grain export effort.  Russia is currently weaponizing grain exports in the war against Ukraine. Such an effort has to be blunted or there are food security threats to many African and other Global South countries. So, let’s start with starting with wheat. The leading exporters, excluding initially Russia, include: the United States, Canada, France, Ukraine, Australia, Germany, Kazakhstan and Poland. This ‘grain’ group could work with others advancing an agreement that would block Russia, or any other protagonist from impeding the export of grain from any of these major states. Such an agreement could be widened to other food exports.

There are numerous global governance areas besides those already identified – focused on technical and functional issues but are important to advancing global governance. There plenty of such agreements possible. For instance, there could be agreements that would enhance student exchange and also science exchange or enhance AI regulation. There is a serious need to improve Multilateral Development Bank (MDB) efforts to deal with large outstanding sovereign debt held by middle and lower-income countries, or that enhance financing for the ‘green transition’ for developing states.

There is no dearth of such policy initiatives, or engagement platforms that would provide common settings for the United States and China and others. It is a beginning, however, and possible roadmap for advancing global governance and hobbling geopolitical forces.

Let’s go there!