O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.

segunda-feira, 26 de dezembro de 2022

The World According to Washington: as previsões americanas para 2023 (and beyond) - The Atlantic Council

TOP 23 RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR 2023 - The Atlantic Council



The top 23 risks and opportunities for 2023

Another world-shaking, world-reordering war in Europe. Brewing fears of war on an even greater scale in Asia. A coronation in China and political upheaval across the democratic world. Climate-induced catastrophes and emboldened movements to mitigate and adapt to them. The worst energy crisis in a half century and worst food crisis in over a decade. Spiraling inflation and the specter of global recession. A less acute but still-raging, still-hugely disruptive pandemic. Epochal ferment in social media and technology more broadly.

Recently, the leaders of the Atlantic Council’s sixteen programs and centers gathered to take stock of these and other developments and trends over the past year, peer into the future, and predict the biggest global risks and opportunities that 2023 could bring.

The results of this foresight exercise are below. Each scenario is assigned a probability; “medium” means a 50/50 chance that the scenario will occur within the next year. Many lower-probability but highly consequential scenarios are included because—as has been so vividly demonstrated this past year—those types of events tend to be some of the most disruptive and transformative. And keep in mind: Forecasts are not destiny. Political leaders and policymakers have agency in shaping whether and how these scenarios play out in the coming year or beyond. The primary purpose of assessing global risks and opportunities, in fact, is to gain insight into how to avert unwanted outcomes and achieve desired ones. To that end, don’t miss the policy prescriptions mixed into many of the entries below.

Top risks

A surge in climate adaptation curtails progress on cutting emissions, locking in at least 1.5 degrees of warming

Pakistan’s devastating floods in 2022, along with the tireless advocacy of Pakistan’s federal minister for climate change, Sherry Rehman, played a pivotal role in rallying parties at the COP27 climate conference to create a Loss and Damage Fund, where rich countries will provide payments to developing countries confronting the costly impacts of climate change. 

But there is a strong possibility in the coming year that this new and desperately needed focus on climate resilience, loss, and damage will produce an unintended opportunity for backsliding on mitigating climate change. Moving from the COP27 agreement to an actual fund with money and a plan to disburse it will require tremendous international activism and action, which could reduce the pressure on governments and non-state actors to cut greenhouse-gas emissions and transition to clean energy. That would slow the already sluggish speed at which the world reins in global warming—the root cause of the destruction that has necessitated the Loss and Damage Fund in the first place. If country and corporate delegates show up in December at the COP28 climate-change conference in the United Arab Emirates with a focus on climate adaptation and loss and damage, but without major commitments to reduce emissions as well, we’ll know this scenario has materialized—and that this century the world will blow past an average increase in temperatures of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which countries have sought to avoid as part of their commitments at the 2015 Paris climate conference.

With international nuclear talks stalled amid continuing protests inside Iran at the end of 2022, a diplomatic breakthrough to halt the program now seems implausible. Several consecutive US presidents, including Joe Biden, have said that the use of force is a last-resort option to keep Tehran from the bomb, but many suspect a bluff. Washington is not taking the steps (such as building domestic or international support for military action) that would be the obvious prelude to military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran is unlikely to test a nuclear explosive device in 2023—and it will take time (perhaps years) for it to put a warhead on a ballistic missile. But once Iran has enough weapons-grade material for its first bomb, the game is over. We will look back at 2023 as the year in which the bipartisan US and international effort to keep Tehran from the bomb failed.

Colombia has long served as the linchpin of US policy in Latin America, and it is currently the only major economy in South America that does not have China as its largest trading partner. But all that may be set to change in 2023. In pursuing his policy agenda, the country’s new president, Gustavo Petro, could generate a backlash in the US Congress, particularly the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. 

Those policies include Petro’s efforts to reimagine (and potentially scale back) cooperation with Washington on judicial issues and criminal extradition, achieve a possible agreement with Colombia’s National Liberation Army guerrilla group, and move away from lockstep coordination with the United States on eradicating drugs and overall drug policy (a joint approach that has been the fundamental tenet of US-Colombia relations over the last twenty years). Fallout in the United States, could, in turn, offer China an opportunity to increase its clout in Colombia. More broadly, inflation and other economic woes in the United States could have outsize consequences for Latin American countries, including greater political polarization and social unrest that leads to democratic backsliding as well as sovereign-debt issues. China could then position itself as a provider of desperately needed relief for countries grappling with these challenges. In such a scenario, US policymakers might be at risk of increasingly losing influence in not just Colombia but Latin America as a whole. A secure position in its near abroad has long been a predicate for America’s robust global posture. Is that position now poised to further erode, even with a longstanding ally?

Authoritarians have been trying to assert control over their technology ecosystems for years, but 2023 could be the year they finally succeed in creating online information environments that they can fully command. Russia, for example, has increased efforts to censor or shut down entire digital platforms for allowing any information about its war of aggression against Ukraine, turning these platforms into a new domain of conflict. China is going further and seeking to build the backbone of an unfree internet beyond its borders by investing in information infrastructure as part of its “discourse power” strategy. Even some democracies such as Indiaand Turkey are instituting sweeping internet shutdowns and crackdowns on freedom of expression online. The US government, meanwhile, lacks a clearly articulated strategy to promote an alternative at home and abroad. What’s playing out is not a partitioning of the infrastructure on which the internet operates, but rather an intensifying contest over the rules that govern infrastructure that is inherently interconnected. 

Don’t expect a switch to flip, but watch for a slow roll toward two internets: one designed to facilitate government control with built-in surveillance, and one at least aiming to be free, open, secure, interoperable, and governed by many. There is a low likelihood that a full-scale splintering happens in the coming year. But if it does, it would change the world for a long time to come—and it could have a catalytic impact on nearly every other risk and opportunity on this list. There is opportunity embedded in this risk, however: Through novel mechanisms such as the Freedom Online Coalition, the US-EU Trade and Technology Council, a new US State Department bureau focused on digital freedom (the Bureau for Cyberspace and Digital Policy), and new offices at the US National Security Council, democratic countries are now better staffed and resourced to craft that much-needed strategy for protecting an open, global internet. There is nothing inevitable about a “splinternet.”

One possibility: In response to Putin’s continued nuclear saber-rattling, fear of nuclear war (fear that would likely be ill-considered, I believe) grows to such an extent in the United States that the country ends up substantially reducing aid to Ukraine. If populist right-wing politicians, despite their underperformance in the US midterm elections, gain greater influence in Washington, that could also lead to a reduction in such assistance. Higher energy prices in the United States and especially in Europe could pressure governments as well.

Putin is playing the long game with Europe—and he can still win. Thus far we’ve seen unprecedented, underappreciated European cohesion in response to Russia’s war against Ukraine, but that unity can’t be taken for granted. And we’re already seeing cracks in familiar places, including between large and small countries as well as wealthy and poorer ones. There are four drivers of this risk, which taken together could produce political gridlock and fragmentation in the European Union (EU). The losers in such an outcome? Europe, Ukraine, and the transatlantic relationship. The Winner? Putin.

The end of 2022 featured the worst global energy crisis since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s. The crisis is not purely of Russia’s making, though major drivers include the geopolitical uncertainty produced by the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine as well as Russian attempts to weaponize its oil and gas supplies. The decrease in energy demand during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic aggravated chronic underinvestment in the energy sector. Coupled with a rapidly warming planet, these factors have put affordable and reliable energy resources out of reach for many in both developed and emerging economies. Moreover, price pressure on the conventional energy resources of oil, gas, and coal comes when the world is also experiencing a unique confluence of drought and abnormal weather patterns, which have hobbled access to electricity from nuclear power (in France, for instance, where water scarcity is impacting nuclear-fuel production) and hydropower (in China and previously Argentina and Brazil).

One possible spark would be some action by US policymakers in Congress, where momentum in favor of stepped-up US material and rhetorical support for Taiwan’s defense and de facto independence is only likely to grow with the Republican takeover of the House. China’s reaction would likely go well beyond what it did following Pelosi’s visit, which included launching ballistic missiles near Taiwan, carrying out military exercises in the waters around the island, conducting a dry run for a blockade, and canceling diplomatic dialogues with the United States. Whatever the response from Chinese leaders, the result will be a new—and more confrontational—normal. They might, for example, take retaliatory actions in Taiwan’s offshore islands or launch a cyberattack against Taiwan’s electrical grid. They may carry out measures that affect the Taiwanese economy or regional supply chains—such as a true blockade of the island—and generally make a mess of the global economy as a result. World War III over Taiwan in 2023 isn’t likely, but what is more likely is a serious Strait standoff short of war that tests US resolve and raises the risk of war in the near future. And any confrontation that pushes the United States and China further into their corners is dangerous in its own right,

When you drill down, though, it becomes clear that many countries would like to move away from the dollar even if it won’t be easy and there is no clear alternative in the near term. That shift is, in fact, already happening gradually. The dollar’s share of foreign-exchange reserves is declining. Nations around the world—not just US rivals such as China but also countries including India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Africa—are investing in technologies such as central bank digital currencies that could make them less reliant on the dollar. The unprecedented global sanctions regime swiftly imposed on Russia in the wake of its February invasion of Ukraine has only increased the likelihood of an accelerated move away from the dollar—perhaps to a probability of roughly 15 percent. If countries can find ways around the dollar, the impact of sanctions would be undercut over time. The next time an adversary violates another country’s borders, the US economic counterpunch might not be quite as painful.

In Washington, those advocating for less US action or presence abroad have growing influence in both parties, though to date they have been largely held at bay by the Biden administration. In Riyadh, relations with the United States are increasingly strained, with each side too often publicly expressing unreasonable expectations of the other. In Jerusalem, the most right-wing government in the country’s history is about to take office, bringing with it predictable challenges for the US-Israel relationship. In Tehran, the regime continues to extend its malign activities outside the region and violently repress its people, all while the most dangerous internal elements jockey for position amid the looming succession of the supreme leader. In this context, the central policy question that has driven US-Iran relations for three consecutive US administrations—should the United States favor or oppose the 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran—becomes irrelevant. Longstanding regional partners too frequently deprioritize US concerns over China and Russia in an effort to hedge against the prospect of US withdrawal, which only serves to increase the probability of that outcome. Several of these partners are perceived to have taken sides in US partisan politics, which contributes to the trend of US policies shifting along with election results. So the questions must now be asked: Over the course of the coming year, will US and Middle Eastern leaders still recognize a strategic need to prevent US withdrawal from the region? If so, what preferences are they willing to subordinate to that end?

Xi Jinping’s speech to the 2022 Party Congress made clear that he intends to double down on developing indigenous technological capabilities, which would not only enable further military advances but create more Chinese technology products that are able to compete with US suppliers. Historically, after developing strong domestic production capacity in a particular area, China has gone around the world and undercut other markets and suppliers. The risk this situation poses to US and European competitive advantage is compound: Companies usually fund research and development (R&D) as a fraction of their sales, and if sales drop then R&D funding declines and innovation slows. The United States is attempting to assert its technological leadership and hinder China’s technological advancement in two ways: promoting (through measures such as the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act) and protecting (through measures such as export controls) domestic industry. But both methods carry significant risks of unintended consequences. By reducing revenue for US companies that do business in China, for example, the “protect” strategy is likely to reduce the capital available from the private sector that the US government is counting on to reshore or “friend-shore” manufacturing capacity, putting US industry further behind Chinese industry in R&D investments. Some US partners are already so dependent on China either as a market for their domestic industries or as a supplier of critical technologies that full-blown tech decoupling won’t be possible without risking their economic health. This dependence might lead to worsening transatlantic relations and increasing disputes over how to deal with a rising China, which may even contribute to a splintering of the alliance supporting Ukraine.

Top opportunities

If Ukraine wins the war in 2023—a big if, but not the unthinkable prospect it was a year ago—and eventually joins the European Union and NATO, the upside potential is enormous. And not only for Ukraine: Such developments would represent a huge success for US leadership in Europe and the future of the rules-based international system.

To fully capitalize on the momentum, however, Washington needs to get out of its own way. There is a need to build conventional and clean-energy infrastructure, but that can’t happen until Congress passes permitting reform that would make it easier to produce oil and gas resources and move electrons from clean-energy sources in the United States. Such permitting reform has bipartisan support, but the odds of a polarized Congress passing it remain low—jeopardizing the country’s ability in 2023 to scale investment and seize this potential inflection point in the global transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

There have been signs in 2022 that Ankara is willing to put this influence to good use, leveraging its connections with both Ukraine and Russia to push for direct peace talks between the two sides. Turkish Bayraktar drones have been instrumental in Ukraine’s defense, while Turkey has also leveraged its longstanding relations with Russia to facilitate, alongside the United Nations, an agreement with Moscow and Kyiv that unlocked the export of Ukrainian grain and lowered the risk of a global food crisis. Turkey is likely to continue to push for a settlement to the war in 2023. Should one start to take shape, Turkey could emerge as a security guarantor and regional counterweight to Russia. Turkish gas discoveries in the Black Sea also have the potential to bolster regional energy security and diversify energy supplies.

Look for significant progress in US efforts to bolster economic ties in Asia by the time of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in San Francisco next November. Of particular note would be the finalization of negotiations on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework as well as significant progress in negotiations on the 21st Century Trade initiative between the United States and Taiwan, which is meant to be a move closer toward a free-trade agreement. Collectively those achievements would show that the Biden administration is making good on its rhetoric about US commitment to the Indo-Pacific going beyond China to focus on benefits for countries across the region. It would also indicate that the United States is resuming its role of regional economic integrator and is prepared to offer a robust alternative to the China model.

Some fear that any plausible replacement would be worse than Putin. But if past is prologue, the chances of Putin’s removal producing a political and diplomatic opening of some kind is significantly higher than that of an even more brutal and aggressive Kremlin policy emerging. If Putin’s failure in Ukraine leads to more than the already-unusual public discontent on display now in Russia, and to real political change in the country, that raises the possibility of at least limited liberalization and normalization of bilateral ties with the United States.

For many European leaders, the past year’s dramatic developments answered some of the unresolved questions about European strategic autonomy. Russia’s war unequivocally underscored the United States’ indispensable role in European security. It also killed any remaining illusions about a European special relationship with Russia and converted even the most dovish proponents of that position in Berlin. Europeans are now much more strategically aligned on the question of the European Union’s relationship with power, even if the EU’s instruments for exercising hard power are still lacking. More hawkish views on China are on the ascendancy in the region as well. The coming year will be about how to put these ideas into practice geopolitically, diplomatically, and especially militarily. What might that look like exactly? If EU military aid continues to flow to Ukraine, that would be an indication that the shift to a more geopolitical EU is happening in practice. In Berlin, it could take the form of operationalizing the government’s ambitious Zeitenwende conceptfor how to engineer a turning point in German foreign and defense policy. Elsewhere, watch for the European Peace Facility (the security-assistance fund from which EU military support for Ukraine is drawn) to be replenished.

Just as the Ukrainian government applied to join the EU within days of Russia’s further invasion of the country, leading the EU to speedily accept Ukraine’s candidacy (and that of Moldova), the conflict may well accelerate the EU membership bids of the Western Balkans countries in the coming year. Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia will likely feel increased urgency to obtain the greater prosperity and security that they believe EU membership would provide, and EU leaders could be more inclined to embrace them—as Germany’s chancellor, for example, has recently signaled.

And the normalization of Maduro as Venezuela’s president is already underway across Latin America; even Colombia, once staunchly opposed to Maduro, reestablished diplomatic relations with his government in 2022. There are other signs pointing to a thaw as well, including Maduro’s participation at the COP27 climate-change conference and a prisoner swap between Venezuela and the United States in the fall. Talks between the Maduro government and its political opposition in Mexico City could foster a deal in which Maduro makes concessions—such as releasing political prisoners, granting opposition candidates access to traditional media outlets, and complying with the recommendations of election observation missions—regarding Venezuela’s 2024 presidential elections in exchange for the United States removing additional sanctions. That pact might include production-sharing agreements between US companies and the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA as well as the creation of a fund for revenue from Venezuelan oil sales that prevents the proceeds from going to the Maduro government itself. Global energy markets will welcome this news—especially in Europe amid its energy crunch—since Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves. The country’s oil sector has grown dilapidated over the past decade. But with the right investments, in the span of a couple years, the world could have a significant new source of supply.

From the US technology sector’s point of view, graduate degrees in STEM fields should come with a green card attached. Democrats and Republicans generally agree on the need for high-skilled visa reform, but the two parties have been unwilling to decouple this shared interest from other matters of immigration policy where they fundamentally disagree. The issue that might break this logjam is China, whose technological ambitions came into sharper focus during the 2022 Chinese Communist Party Congress. The national-security implications of falling behind Beijing could finally spur some limited reform. A legislative breakthrough that grants lawful permanent resident status for certain advanced STEM degree holders—perhaps as part of the National Defense Authorization Act—would be a big win for the US tech sector and the future of US innovation in emerging technology.

One of the most significant outcomes of this past year’s United Nations COP27 climate-change conference was that it produced a path forward for the 2015 Paris Agreement’s Global Goal on Adaptation. That includes $230 million(admittedly still a drop in the bucket compared with an expected need of hundreds of billions of dollars per year) in new pledges by governments and development agencies to help countries adjust to a changing climate, as well as the announcement of the Sharm el-Sheikh Adaptation Agenda to enhance resilience in the world’s most climate-vulnerable places by 2030. 

Outside the official negotiations at COP27, I witnessed numerous efforts to accelerate investment in climate resilience, including new initiatives to mobilize capital for adaptation to extreme heat and for cooling food, medicine, and buildings through methods ranging from light surfaces to green spaces and roofs to machines powered by renewable energy. The select non-governmental “Climate Champions” at COP27 also endorsed existing projects where the insurance industry is taking risk-transfer approaches to advance climate adaptation along with disaster preparedness and response. European Union regulators, meanwhile, have developed a taxonomy for the financing of climate adaptation, helping refine how to measure such investments. Less than 10 percent of total climate finance currently goes to climate adaptation. But the stage is set for an innovative cast of public and private actors to make 2023 a breakthrough year in which investments in climate adaptation more than double to account for a quarter of total climate finance.

The threat has become dire enough that, as my colleague Harris Samad has pointed out, climate change may be the one chance to generate constructive transnational conversations in South Asia over the coming year. The catch that makes major progress unlikely? These conversations would need to occur among civil-society organizations, since the governments in the region have effectively closed down all cross-border scientific cooperation. Still, collaboration of any kind—from standardized climate curricula to a public-private forum for data-sharing to common strategies for building climate-resilient infrastructure —would present an opportunity to save countless lives. At the regional and local levels, it would also serve as a model for how to counteract climate change despite deep geopolitical divisions.

   

Bertrand Russell and “The Problem of China” - The Economist

 China | Way back when

Bertrand Russell and “The Problem of China”

A sage’s century-old look at a country on the rise

The Economist   Dec 20th 2022 | BEIJING


Upon arriving in China in 1920 Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, was overwhelmed at the welcome he received. “They hail me as the second Confucius, and invite me to tell them exactly what they are to do with their country,” he wrote to a paramour. “It is a terrible responsibility.”

Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Still, Russell took up the challenge. After a sojourn lasting nearly ten months, he returned to England and in 1922 published a book called “The Problem of China”. It remains relevant a century later, offering enough wisdom to offset its occasional lapses into folly.

Russell’s observations are at times prescient. He described, for example, how “the most urgent problem in China’s relations with foreign powers is Japanese aggression.” He also noted that Russia’s Bolsheviks enjoyed “the enthusiastic sympathy of the younger Chinese students” and might gain wider appeal. 

One young person whom Russell met during his stay was Mao Zedong. The future Communist leader’s name does not appear in the book. But Russell declared that “a vigorous reformer possessed of literary skill could carry with him the great majority of Young China.”

Russell thought China was being held back by Confucianism’s emphasis on filial piety, which, he argued, led to corruption and “prevented the growth of public spirit”. He foresaw a booming Chinese textile sector, with the potential to be “as great as that of Lancashire”. He thought that contact with the West would help China’s industrial development, which he expected to “proceed rapidly throughout the next few decades”. But he warned China that “development should be controlled by the Chinese rather than by foreign nations.”

Critics knock Russell for failing to spend much time in the countryside and holding China to different standards from other countries. Some of his observations are quaint, such as his description of Shanghai as “a vast city, about the size of Glasgow”. Others are cringe-worthy, such as his view of the Chinese as “gentle, urbane, seeking only justice and freedom”. Compared with “white races”, they have “much less desire…to tyrannise over other people,” he wrote. Tibetans and Uyghurs might disagree.

“I don’t think I shall write on China. It is a complex country, with an old civilisation,” Russell stated in correspondence, before changing his mind. In his letters he often sounds like a detractor. In one, for example, he describes China as “decaying and rotten, like the late Roman Empire”. He also gripes that “most of the students are stupid and timid,” whereas in the book he calls them “able and extraordinarily keen”.

“The Problem of China” was widely read in the country and praised for its largely positive assessment. (It is still available there today.) Russell believed that China, with its resources, population and patriotic spirit, could become “the greatest Power in the world after the United States”. But he also offered a warning: “The danger of patriotism is that, as soon as it has proved strong enough for successful defence, it is apt to turn to foreign aggression.” 

 

domingo, 25 de dezembro de 2022

A China se esforça para manter boas relações como o mundo, a despeito da deterioração recente (EIU)

 A China teria muito mais a ganhar mantendo boas relações com as principais potências ocidentais do que aprofundando seus laços com a Rússia. O fato de se manter do lado desta assinala o peso das humilhações passadas na sua postura atual e sua decepção com a arrogância americana. PRA

How to read Xi Jinping’s return to the world stage


  • EIU is not convinced that China will be successful in fostering a more benign international environment for itself in 2023, which we believe is the goal of Xi Jinping’s recent diplomatic engagement—involving more than 30 bilateral meetings with world leaders.
  • Our assessment of the structural constraints in China’s relations with the West points to a challenging outlook. These include frictions over industrial policy, human-rights violations, regional security and more. China will stick to a “divide and conquer” playbook in order to frustrate greater co‑ordination between Western powers.
  • Leaders of India and North Korea are notably missing from the list of leaders with whom Mr Xi has recently met. China’s bilateral ties with the former have deteriorated owing to a military stand‑off along the border. Our expectations that North Korea will resume nuclear missile testing in 2023 also poses a risk to China’s efforts to warm relations with Japan and South Korea.

China’s president, Xi Jinping, has met with more than 30 world leaders in the past three months. We see this as a purposeful attempt to “make up for lost time” during the pandemic, when Mr Xi shunned in‑person engagements over concerns tied to covid‑19. This came at a price. By contrast to China’s relative isolation, a flurry in US diplomatic activity in 2021‑22 and the Ukraine war have helped to strengthen consensus among Western (and some Asian) governments in regard to national security, technological competition and human-rights concerns pertaining to China. This has exacerbated Chinese anxieties around US‑led efforts to contain China diplomatically.

The extent of Mr Xi’s recent diplomatic engagement confirms our view that China is looking to foster a more benign international environment for itself in 2023, as domestic economic and political risks grow. However, we are not convinced that China will be successful in these goals. Driving this view is our assessment that China’s relations with the West will remain under significant pressure in the next five years, primarily owing to its deteriorating ties with the US. Our expectations also reflect our pessimistic outlook for China’s ties with Taiwan over the next two years, given our expectations that a more pro‑independence candidate will contest (and win) the Taiwanese presidential elections in 2024.  

Keeping things in perspective

As we have repeatedly highlighted, among China’s chief foreign policy concerns are fears that the US will successfully forge an international coalition aimed at deepening technological, economic and diplomatic pressure on China. To some degree, Mr Xi has aimed to counter this by stabilising China’s increasingly strained relations with the West (and aligned governments). In his recent meetings with state-level counterparts from the US, Germany, France, Australia and Japan, Mr Xi not only emphasised efforts to enhance economic and trade co‑operation, but also stronger alignment between China and these countries around shared issues of global security. These included China’s opposition to the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, as well as quiet reassurance that China is not planning an imminent invasion of Taiwan (although this was publicly conveyed by Joe Biden, the US president, rather than by Mr Xi directly). We see China’s more conciliatory tone, particularly in regard to security issues, as reflecting genuine interest in minimising the risk of future military conflict.

Nonetheless, we maintain our pessimistic outlook on the ties between China and the West. Mr Xi’s tense, highly publicised exchange with Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, over allegations of the latter’s leaking of meeting details to the Canadian media represents lingering attachment to a more aggressive style of diplomacy. The cancellation of a last-minute meeting between Mr Xi and Rishi Sunak, the UK prime minister, was also attributed to the latter’s involvement in an emergency G7 meeting over Ukraine, but may have also reflected Chinese anger at the UK leader’s support for Taiwan.

Our assessment of the structural constraints in China’s relations with the West also points to a more challenging outlook for a potential pivot in diplomatic ties. These include frictions over the Ukraine war, industrial and trade policy, national security, human-rights violations and regional security (not only in regard to Taiwan, but also the South and East China Seas, and AUKUS). These tensions will be hard to unwind. Tit-for-tat sanctions remain in force between the US, the EU, Canada, the UK and China over human-rights violations in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, the effects of which have frozen a planned EU‑China investment deal. In addition to existing US export controls and investment bans on China, new US export controls on Chinese chip firms are rumoured to materialise in the coming days. Alongside US lobbying of Japanese and European officials to tighten their own export controls over China, which we expect as part of the EU‑US Trade and Technology Council meetings in December, this will renew China’s feelings of diplomatic hostility.

In the light of these impediments to a strengthening in bilateral ties, we continue to expect China to stick to a “divide and conquer” playbook in order to frustrate greater co‑ordination between Western powers. This strategy will not always be successful, given general Western alignment on issues of mutual concern, such as human rights and the domestic erosion of democratic values in China. However, there is still enough room for these tactics to take root. The recent decision by the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, to visit China on his own—rather than agreeing to a joint trip proposed by the French president, Emmanuel Macron—has already helped to fuel wider concerns over EU unity. China was happy to exploit these tensions, including by ostensibly offering business deals to German companies in China that were in fact offered to other European firms (and, as we have noted, many of these deals were repackaged from existing agreements).

We also expect China to see value in taking advantage of the EU’s intra‑institutional divide. On the sidelines of the G20, Mr Xi prioritised bilateral meetings with all five EU national leaders that were present (Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy). By contrast, he shunned engagement with Ursula Von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, and Charles Michel, the European Council president (although Mr Xi later received Mr Michel for a state visit on December 1st‑2nd).

Similar dynamics can be also spotted during Mr Xi’s meetings with Asian leaders. While Mr Xi emphasised that Asia must not become an “arena of big power contests”, he hosted the general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Ngyuen Phu Trong, and the Pakistani prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, as the first two foreign leaders to meet Mr Xi after China’s political reshuffle in October. The timing of these visits reflected China’s growing concerns over its Asian neighbours being forced to “choose sides” between it and the West—as well as anxieties over the risk that “friend-shoring” will draw China and its Asian neighbours into a zero‑sum game around economic and geopolitical competition. As with Europe, China has also included “sweeteners” in its engagement with Asia. Days after Mr Xi met with Yoon Suk‑yeol, South Korea’s president, China resumed online streaming of South Korean media content. This marked the strongest effort to normalise China-South Korea relations after China unofficially suspended South Korean entertainment content in China, following South Korea’s deployment of the US‑backed THAAD missile defence system in 2016.

India and North Korea: where words remain unsaid

Two leaders are notably missing from the list of leaders with whom Mr Xi has recently met, namely the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong‑un. Mr Modi was present at the Shanghai Co‑operation Organisation meetings in September and at the G20 in November, but he and Mr Xi only held brief informal exchanges at both. Although India and China have ended their 28‑month military stand‑off in eastern Ladakh, security tensions in other sections of the Line of Actual Control (the de facto border) remain high. India and China each continue to maintain around 60,000 troops and advanced weaponry in the Ladakh theatre, and we expect bilateral ties to remain difficult in 2023‑37.

Kim Jong‑un is the only governing communist party leader (among North Korea, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam) with whom Mr Xi has not held a bilateral meeting. Part of this may reflect China’s anxieties over North Korea’s repeated missile tests this year, which threaten to cool China’s warming relations with Japan and South Korea (as the latter two move closer to the US for security reasons). Still, we expect China to play an increasing role in mediating tensions along the Korean peninsula, given our forecast that North Korea will resume nuclear weapons testing in 2023.