Economics

الاقتصاد العالمي يواجه أربعة مخاطر جيوسياسية

Dec 28, 2015 Martin Feldstein

كمبريدج ــ تعد نهاية العام مناسبة جيدة للنظر في المخاطر التي تنتظرنا. وهناك بالطبع مخاطر اقتصادية مهمة، بما في ذلك إساءة تسعير الأصول التي سببها عقد سادت فيه أسعار فائدة شديدة الانخفاض، فضلا عن التغييرات في الطلب الناجمة عن البنية المتغيرة للاقتصاد الصيني والضعف المستمر للاقتصاديات الأوروبية. بيد أن المخاطر الرئيسية الأبعد مدى هي المخاطر الجيوسياسية، النابعة من أربعة مصادر: روسيا والصين والشرق الأوسط والفضاء الالكتروني.

وبرغم أن الاتحاد السوفيتي لم يعد له وجود، تظل روسيا قوة نووية مرعبة، مع قدرتها على استعراض القوة في أي مكان في العالم. ولكن روسيا ضعيفة اقتصاديا أيضا بسبب اعتمادها على عائدات النفط في وقت تنخفض فيه الأسعار بشكل مأساوي. ولقد حذر الرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتن الروس بالفعل من أنهم يواجهون خطر التقشف، لأن الحكومة لم تعد قادرة على تحمل تقديم الدعم الذي كانت تقدمه في السنوات الأخيرة.

وينبع الخطر الجيوسياسي من اعتماد بوتن المتزايد على العمل العسكري في الخارج ــ في أوكرايينا والآن في سوريا ــ للحفاظ على شعبيته في الداخل، مستخدما وسائط الاتصال المحلية (التي تقع الآن بالكامل تحت سيطرة الكرملين) لتعظيم الأهمية العالمية لروسيا. وتستخدم روسيا أيضا صادراتها من الغاز إلي غرب أوروبا وتركيا كسلاح اقتصادي، برغم أن قرار تركيا الأخير بالتزود بالغاز من إسرائيل يوضح حدود هذه الاستراتيجية. وبينما يواجه بوتن هذا وغيره من التحديات، تظل روسيا بالنسبة لباقي العالم مصدرا لالتباس عميق.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Martin Feldstein

Writing for PS since 2008
130 Commentaries

Martin Feldstein was Professor of Economics at Harvard University and President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He chaired President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984. In 2006, he was appointed to President Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and, in 2009, was appointed to President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. He was also on the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Group of 30, a non-profit, international body that seeks greater understanding of global economic issues.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 12 Comments on this article

Peter Burgess Jan 4, 2016

Perspective really matters. I would like to see what a Russian Fedlstein, or a Chinese Feldstein or a Saudi Feldstein or an Iranian Feldstein would have written about geopolitical risks. I am sure that in each case the United States would be on the list. I came to the United States almost 50 years ago, and have been appalled at the massive scale of investment in the US military and the tiny investment made in soft diplomacy and international development assistance. Might does not make right. The world is a wonderful place, but it is impossible to build a stable peaceful tranquil world when bombs are the medium of communication.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Pu Jan 3, 2016

Look who's talking!
Two men in a boxing ring face risks to and from each other.
The author's perspective is obvious.
"Can we all just get along?"; apparently not Rodney!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Billyard Jan 3, 2016

International polling shows that America with its insatiable bloodlust and moral and financial bankruptcy is regarded as the the biggest threat to world peace. I don't see how anybody can be so indifferent to what is so obvious. Ultimately the US is the architect of its own demise and tragically it leaves a huge wage of death and destruction in its path.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alejandro Moreno Jan 1, 2016

Martin Feldstein , in addition to his interesting approach to geopolitical risks; I would establish the systemic risk in the economy, 1- The man cannot continue to produce in the way that you crave because this does lead to endanger the very existence of man confronted by climate change within a finite nature and of incipient development mental. 2- Technological progress tends to destroy jobs, and whose consequences are far from addressing solutions to the politicians in power for fear of upsetting the status quo. 3- Corruption and deregulation are a decadent manifestation itself, which significantly disturbs the model. 4- The power of reason lies kidnapped. 5- The demographic phenomenon. 6- The emerging politics extremists because of the silence of honest leaders. Pope Francis is a voice in the desert that moves mountains. Everything else are origin failures.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Dec 31, 2015

Hi Martin,

While my default mode is to proactively engage with vision, leadership, pragmatism and organization, in order to preempt or preclude situations that allow dangers to form and thence for risk to concern us -- there is certainly a time to take stock, to measure our place in the world, to put our perceptions to the test, in order to assess likely future risks.

Each year-end presents a wonderful opportunity to do exactly that.

Keeping in mind that all problems on this *blue marble* are human problems, that is, they are human-caused problems -- and because we caused them, we can solve them if we choose.

We alone have written the madcap play that all of us are the actors in.

1. When we look at Russia, we must always remember that when viewed through the prism of American or European thought, we in the West cannot fully understand the Russian mindset.

Yes, the Russians look like us, they buy many of the same products, they may even vacation in similar locales. But it would be a big mistake to think they *are us* or are *like us* or *think like us* based on those superficial comparisons.

Their national experience since October 1917 couldn't be more different than our own.

Although the Soviet Union was founded on revolution, their experience in WWII (for example) was much different than ours.

The people of the USSR endured almost inconceivable suffering during WWII and in the immediate postwar timeframe, and so consequently, their response to us during the Cold War and their evident bias to not only end the Cold War but to disband their entire bloc and rewrite their constitution, were shaped by those experiences.

Suffice to say that the worldview of everyday Russians and their leaders are significantly different from North Americans and Europeans.

If we base our policies and subsequent actions on a flawed interpretation of the Russian mindset we are likely to face increased risks, by creating or enabling dangerous situations to form.

Therefore, *everything Russia* must be viewed not only from the American or European world viewpoint, but also from the viewpoint of the Russian leadership and the citizens of that country.

And frankly, that hasn't been done as well as it could and should have been done, since the days of Kissinger, Brzezinski and James A. Baker III.

*Regarding Russia: Our #1 risk factor isn't Russia, it's our lack of understanding.*

2. China is a large country that isn't going anywhere. We will be dealing with China for many decades to come, since rising (and still rising) out of poverty. And they will be dealing with us.

If anything, we should avoid conflicts with China -- and instead of trying to 'put them in the wrong' we should become their guide, their facilitator, their mentor, always trying to 'put them in the right.'

Every day of the year, we humans are teaching others how to treat us.

If we teach China that we are all about hostility, they will learn that fighting us is the way to deal with us. If we constantly criticize China, they will condemn us in return.

If we give China reason to fear, we all know that "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering."

It's a great Star Wars line, isn't it? Still, it's just as true on Earth, as it is in space/sci-fi adventure movies.

To lower our risk with China, we need discipline.

We need to be setting the bar, showing the way, shining the light, and using constructive criticism -- praising publicly and criticising privately.

In this way, we will be the Father, the Mentor, the Guide, the Explainer -- and exactly what we teach China about who we are, will tell them how to treat us.

If we teach China that use of force always works -- and that diplomacy doesn't -- we will be the worse off for it, and so will they.

Yet, it will have been us that wrote that madcap play.

Kissinger's trips to Peking as it was then called by the West, was a great start.

Smatterings of constructive engagement since, have been helpful (but only in a smattering kind of way).

And Obama's 'Pivot to Asia' may yet turn out to be, in retrospect, inspired -- if handled correctly and properly followed-up. And the recent joint U.S.-China CO2 reduction plan seems to have added some amount of normalcy to the relationship that has been otherwise lacking.

Yet, the *Windows of Lost Opportunity* have been stupendous!

It is, by-and-large, an unmanaged relationship, with far too occasional bright moments of successful diplomacy.

Had it been handled proactively and correctly all this time, the $1 Trillion dollar Apple success story, would have represented only one of a hundred similar stories. Or possibly, one-thousand similar success stories.

In reality, thus far, the relationship between China and the U.S. has been one of staggeringly huge, missed opportunities, and even worse, minor sabre-rattling.

Although China seems a willing partner and wants to engage, the same cannot be said of America. Europe is doing a little better at this, but only recently.

*If China represents a risk to the West, it's because we have been very busy with far less important matters.*

3. Except for the Western-inspired 'Arab Spring' the MENA region might have made some small amount of forward progress in the 2010-2020 timeframe.

I doubt that anyone would suggest that citizens of the affected countries are any better off now, compared to pre-Arab Spring.

Yet, with the Iran nuclear deal secured and Israel now turning to domestic issues, the chess game between Sunni Arabs and Shia Persians will continue, mostly uneventfully, for decades.

*Containing ISIS and keeping Western nations safe from ISIS terror attacks would be best served by getting the West out of Syria (leaving that whole situation to the Syrian government and the Russians) and concentrate on increasing a coalition presence in Iraq, with plenty of assistance for Turkey, which has two problems, millions of refugees and a security threat on its southern flank.*

4. The world (not just the U.S. or Europe) needs a dedicated (and properly funded!) cybersecurity organization on par with INTERPOL, but geared solely to identifying and combatting cybercrime in realtime, and to offer all manner and levels of support to domestic agencies involved in countering cybercrimes.

EXAMPLES: Whether that anti-cybercrime organization is assisting a small town 5-person police department putting together its first anti-cybercrimes programme, or assisting the Chief of the NYPD cybercrimes division to combat a cybercrime in progress, or briefing Homeland Security or the Pentagon (and other police and security organizations of other countries) it must meet those agencies and departments *where they are* and provide *what they need* in realtime.

If not, failure will be the result.

The present situation, just isn't up to the coming threats. As well-intended as each department and agency's efforts in this regard surely are, their capabilities are at least one order of magnitude less than what is required.

By 2020, it might easily be two orders of magnitude short of reasonably preventing the most serious cyberattacks.

We spend money to insure our cars and trucks (in advance of mishap or misadventure) for good reason.

One otherwise average morning, we might step outside to find that $50,000. of damage has occurred overnight to the $70,000. vehicle in our life.

*A properly funded and properly overseen global anti-cybercrimes support centre would provide the 'insurance' we need to counter looming cyberthreats.*
_____

TO SUMMARIZE: We live in a world of risks.

However, that doesn't mean that we have to play 'their game' -- after all, why play to our opponent's strengths?

With the right vision (to preclude falling into 'risk' in the first place) and the right leadership (to turn negatives into positives if things do go awry) and by providing the right support for those who negotiate or fight on our behalf -- we can either *change the game* to suit our purposes and strengths (at best) or *lower our risk* in an effort to avoid negative outcomes, or minimize damages (at worst).

And that, my friends, is how to play the game of Risk and win more often than not.

As always, very best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cary Fraser Dec 30, 2015

If the risks the global economy faces arise from the sources that Feldstein has identified, the larger issue than is that American assumptions that it could play the role of " the only Superpower" - a task for which it is ill prepared and a role that is, by its very nature, ill-defined. Given the increasing polarization within the USA, does Feldstein think that the rest of the world will twiddle their thumbs and wait for the USA to solve its internal incoherence?.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Dec 29, 2015

As an academic, Marty forgets next US election result may turn out to be the most disturbing global strategic event in 21st century which might seriously impact US capacity to deal with rest of the world. Blaming mainland China & Russia from a safe academic chair is a reflection of singular misunderstanding of global impact of 2008 financial crisis and its consequences, so far, while (WTO) globalization has outstripped national sovereignty of nation-states.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Chris Jones Dec 29, 2015

Eurasian conflicts spreading to Africa and elsewhere are now festering and likely to continue feverishly exacerbating the decline of stability. Insulating the Americas from those crippling conflicts should be a priority.
Firewalling SCADA from intranet systems will go a long way in protecting our essential control systems. Protecting our infrastructure from EMP should be another priority. My greatest concern is that our children are becoming virtual zombies and ill prepared to meet the challenges of the future. Too many Baby Boomers became air heads under the influence of media and drugs. A new American manifest destiny is needed to propel us to infinity and beyond. Thank God immigrating innovators such as Elon Musk came along for the ride.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brown Dec 29, 2015

The real threat to the nation aren't the ones mention in the article. Those are threats that the USA may not be able to handle because we are stuck with the worst, weakest, most inept, negligent, incompetent, divisive, worthless President in our nation's history. A President who has damaged our nation beyond belief. Our economy and jobs, he's gutted our military, and he's left us wide open to Islamic Terror attacks. The weakness and incompetence of Obama is the real threat to our nation. Its almost like we have an enemy saboteur siting in our oval office.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Bull Dec 28, 2015

Professor Feldstein has missed the largest geopolitical risk: US imperialism. To have ignored this reality makes his analysis less than meaningful.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Dec 28, 2015

Russia is the largest country. China is the most populous country. Religion, albeit between or within the same faiths, has the most followers amongst the population. Cyberspace to include cyber weapons can be accessed by the many. Natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, volcanos, tsunamis, etc.) and man-made disasters (nuclear, WMDs’, etc.) are all risks and all with geopolitical implications. All these risks and many more have two things in common and these are (1) planet earth, (2) humans. Unless all humans start thinking seriously how to honestly protect this planet, and to put this planet above all considerations, this planet earth will not be merciful with us at all. I am yet to know someone who left this life, and took a penny with him.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.