A new world order seeks to prioritise security and climate change
Climate change was a distant threat. Allowing countries like China or Russia into the global economy was widely seen to be beneficial for both them and their Western trading partners. As the two countries grew they would surely adopt market economics and, ultimately, democracy.
Other things mattered. But economic considerations took precedence. Not anymore.
Policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic have come to the conclusion that national security and climate change must now come first. In Brussels talk is of “economic security" and “strategic autonomy"—policymakers want the bloc to be able to chart its own course. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, recently said that she wants to “derisk" relations with China.
Officials in Washington have similar ambitions. They believe that the old world order allowed America’s industrial base to wither, created economic dependencies that could be exploited for geopolitical gain, left the climate crisis unaddressed and increased inequality in a manner that undermined democracy. Yet pursuing greater security, tackling climate change and seeking to counter the threat of China involves all manner of trade-offs.
Even if economic considerations are no longer dominant, the discipline of economics still has much to offer. In order to make sensible use of an economic weapon such as sanctions, for instance, national-security types must accurately gauge their costs. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year provided a test case.
At the time, debates raged in the EU about whether to ban imports of Russian gas. The fear—forcefully voiced by businesses and industrial unions—was that an embargo would be a brutal economic hit not to Russia, but to Europe instead. When a group
. Read more on livemint.com
