William Nee’s Post

🇧🇷 Brazil’s Strategic Opportunity to Amplify Influence at the G-20 and the BRICS Summit As the global order evolves, Brazil faces a pivotal opportunity to expand its influence within the G-20 and the upcoming BRICS Summit. With the United States adopting a more inward-looking stance under its current administration—prioritizing border security and protectionist trade policies—the Global South is forging stronger bonds to reduce reliance on traditional Western partnerships. This shift reflects a growing recognition that complete dependence on the world’s largest economy is no longer viable. For Brazil, this geopolitical realignment offers a chance to advocate for and benefit from multilateral reforms. By actively engaging in the restructuring of the international system, Brazil can position itself as a key player in shaping a more inclusive global governance framework. A recent Foreign Affairs article highlights this shifting dynamic, emphasizing the urgency for the United States to address the emerging configurations of power in the international arena. By leveraging its leadership within multilateral platforms, Brazil has the potential to enhance its global standing and contribute meaningfully to a more balanced international order.

We make a pitch for Trump to double down on a challenging agenda with high rewards. The G20 can be at the center of this. America’s Last Chance With the Global South | Foreign Affairs. with Max Yoeli

Event Alert! The following are thus some of the relevant questions that this panel would like to address:  How would the EU navigate geopolitical complexities in the Indo-Pacific to secure its economic interests?   How effective will the EU’s Economic Security Strategy be as a supportive framework of its Indo-Pacific approach, and in countering the economic influence of other major players in the Indo-Pacific, such as China? In particular, how can it strengthen the EU-Indo-Pacific supply chain connection?  What partnerships and alliances should the EU prioritize to enhance economic security in the region? How does its Economic Security complement those of its partners like Japan, Australia, India, and ASEAN?  How can the EU balance its economic interests with its values of human rights and environmental protection in its dealings with Indo-Pacific nations? https://lnkd.in/d63Te2gp Institute for Security and Development Policy (ISDP)

https://lnkd.in/gaDfNbSc "This article first appeared in French at Le Grand Continent This article is commentary as part of the Lloyd George Study Group on Global Governance. Learn more about the Study Group and its work. “In foreign relations,” Walter Lippmann famously wrote, “a nation must maintain its objectives and its power in equilibrium, its purposes within its means and its means equal to its purposes.” When nations fail to balance international commitments and national capabilities, Lippmann added, they “will follow a course that leads to disaster.” Foreign policy analysts often equate Lippmann’s means to military and economic capabilities, but as Lippmann himself argued, a country’s political “solvency” is often more critical to effective statecraft. Today, Western democracies are suffering from a “Lippmann gap.” A large gulf has opened between Western governments’ internationalist ambitions and their publics’ willingness to support these. As we show in Geopolitics and Democracy, Western voters’ support for trade liberalization and multilateral cooperation has fallen by nearly half since the end of the Cold War, much of this coming before the 2008 global financial crisis. The pace and extent of this decline in public support for such liberal internationalist policies have varied across the West. Yet in one Western democracy after another, voters have turned increasingly to candidates and parties advocating fewer international ties. Many factors contributed to the rise of anti-globalism, but two drivers were decisive: the end of the Cold War and the turn to neoliberalism. During the Cold War, geopolitical imperatives disciplined Western democracies, at once strengthening their commitment to the welfare state and marginalizing anti-globalist parties and factions. This all changed in the 1990s. Freed of great power conflict, Western leaders adopted new growth strategies. Liberalizing markets and rolling back social protections to promote globalization eroded manufacturing and created a climate of economic insecurity. As voters grew more vulnerable, they became increasingly receptive to anti-globalists promising greater economic safeguards and national autonomy. Once a source of domestic cohesion, liberal internationalism has become a source of political fragmentation and weakness within the West. Early predictions that Western democracies’ unified response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine would break the anti-globalist fever have not borne out yet. In the past year, anti-globalists have made political inroads in France, Italy, Sweden, and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the possibility of a Trump restoration in the United States persists. Geopolitics alone cannot fix this problem. The West needs a different approach."

The result of the MEP (European Parliament) election held on June 9th has had repercussions for quite some time. It wasn't that disastrous, but the incremental gains of the far right-wing parties were the symptoms of the fatigue detected in the old continent due to the #Ukraine #Russia war and #Israel #Palestine conflict, as well as high inflation, according to some arguments. This article by Joanne Lin and her colleague Eugene Tan comprehensively covered the background of #ASEAN #EU Relations as well as their discontents, more precisely, the EU's somewhat ailing approach to #Southeastasia, which needs to be dramatically reformed. Last week, The Jakarta Post published an op-ed, "Why the EU should adjust its policy toward Southeast Asia" by Denis Suarsana. His tone was way stronger as the EU's "morally arrogant" attitude won't work anymore in the region. He compares the EU a lot with China. However, their philosophy, value system, and strengths are all different. If pragmatism and realpolitik are the only ways for #diplomacy #multilateralism shouldn't have even taken off earlier on. Nonetheless, it's quite pathetic and even helpless to see that power dynamics and realpolitik are the easier answers to get all the mess and fatigue sorted. Back to the article I shared here, it describes the issues the EU has faced with ASEAN, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia, over trade disputes such as Palmoil and deforestration. The EU has established itself as the forefront of sustainable development, approaches are meticulous, which does not leave much room for others to manoeuvre. That is what ASEAN feels about being pushed and elbowed. While ASEAN is struggling with the #US and #China, China is more engaged with ASEAN, encompassing political security and economy. Due to its geographical proximity, this is not surprising. It would've been the same elsewhere. #Korea and #Japan also naturally engage more with ASEAN, which is unsurprising. Cultural similarities and geographical proximities cannot be detached from this natural engagement. #Europe, on the other hand, has a lot of riddles and difficulties keeping ASEAN on their side. It's again not surprising. The approaches the article suggested are the support for climate action, AI governance (not necessarily tech development but regulation), and privacy protection through capacity building. However, the EU's style of capacity building needs to sync better with ASEAN. Because the EU has its own standards and pre-structured approach to conform to the standards created through long discussions. EU needs to reconsider its approach to be more flexible and less rigid to clear its views and see ASEAN. While the world is pretty much occupied by US-China competition and the possible return of #Trump, we also need to keep an eye on other engagements and middle power roles to make as many options available as possible. Therefore, the EU's role in the region cannot be neglected.

Power Shifts in International Organizations: China at the United Nations The People's Republic of China is central to current debates about power shifts in international organisations, but a systematic and comprehensive assessment of China-related shifts has been missing. SEBASTIAN HAUG, ROSEMARY FOOT and MAX-OTTO BAUMANN contribute to addressing this gap and examine whether, how and to what extent China-related power shifts have unfolded at the United Nations (UN) over the last two decades or so. They define power shifts as changes in the ability of actors to shape others' capacities to act and outline a framework that builds on Barnett and Duvall's four power types of compulsory, institutional, structural and productive power. The authors’ analysis covers empirical insights from the UN's three main pillars – peace and security, development and human rights – and paints an uneven picture. Despite continuing Western dominance, China is mobilizing more compulsory power means than two decades ago. Chinese attempts to enact institutional power have also increased but mostly unfold in multilateral niches and remain cautious. While China's structural power position has expanded, China-related effects in productive power have so far remained limited and scattered. The authors conclude with a combined assessment of changes across power types and discuss research and policy implications. #unitednations #internationalorganizations #un #unsc #china #securitycouncil #unsecuritycouncil #thinkun

The world is at a crossroad- the so-called “global interconnected world” that existed pre 7 October 2023 does not exist anymore. The United Nations has proven itself as being an absolute ineffective talking shop that cannot and does not live up to the ideals and mission statement to “Maintain International Peace and Security. Protect Human Rights. Deliver Humanitarian Aid. Support Sustainable Development and Climate Action”. The events of October has exposed the duplicity and hypocrisy of those countries that have traditionally been espousing democratic values and human rights in other countries. The world is no longer the same world that existed pre 7 October 2023. It is possible perhaps even desirable for the sake of world peace that we ditch this notion that we live in a global connected world and consider the fact that there is a well defined global north and a global south now. Organizations such as the UN, International Monetary Fund G7, The World Bank and others that are located in the global north should focus on the countries of the “global north” whilst the organizations such as BRICS, The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and others should increase their respective membership and strengthen their respective institutions to cater to the requirements of the “global south”. The events of October has given birth to the notion that the global south is now viable and its institutions can enable and ensure its citizens to live in peace and promote true economic development in their respective member countries. The global north will not have a say in the affairs of the countries in the global south and vice versa, the global south will not interfere in the affairs of those countries in the global north.

The recent joint statement by the #BRICS Ministers of #ForeignAffairs is a significant move that could reshape global #governance, #finance, and #geopolitics. Here’s why it matters and what could happen next: Why This Matters? 1. UN Reform: 🔸️Greater Voice for Developing Countries: BRICS is pushing for a more democratic UN, aiming to give developing countries more say. 🔸️Possible Pushback: The US and others with significant clout in the UN might resist these changes to maintain their influence. 2. Financial System Overhaul: 🔸️Boost for BRICS Economies: Encouraging the use of local currencies in trade among BRICS nations could reduce reliance on the US dollar, making their economies more stable and resilient. 🔸️Shift in Global Finance: Reforming international financial institutions to give developing countries a bigger voice could lead to more balanced economic policies globally, potentially reducing inequalities. 3. Geopolitical Implications: 🔸️Support for Palestine: By backing Palestinian statehood and criticizing Israel’s actions, BRICS is taking a bold stance that could heighten tensions with countries that support Israel. This could influence diplomatic relations and future negotiations in the Middle East. 🔸️Opposition to US Policies: The criticism of unilateral coercive measures, indirectly targeting US policies, underscores BRICS' stance against economic and political dominance. This could foster stronger alliances among countries feeling similarly constrained. 4. Trade and Protectionism: 🔸️Fair Trade Advocacy: BRICS’ opposition to protectionist measures advocates for a more open and competitive global trade environment. This could benefit global supply chains and spur economic growth. 🔸️Challenges Ahead: Implementing these trade reforms will require negotiation and compromise, especially with major economies that have protectionist policies. What Could Happen Next? 1. Diplomatic Efforts: 🔹️BRICS countries will likely engage in extensive diplomacy to rally support for their proposed reforms at international forums like the UN General Assembly and G20 meetings. 2. Collaborative Projects: 🔹️They might start collaborative initiatives within BRICS to showcase the benefits of their proposals, especially in financial transactions and trade. 3. Lobbying and Advocacy: 🔹️Expect intensive lobbying from BRICS diplomats to persuade other nations to back their agenda, highlighting the advantages of a more inclusive global governance system. 4. Building Alliances: 🔹️Strengthening regional partnerships and alliances with other developing nations to present a united front advocating for these reforms globally. 5. Monitoring Progress: 🔹️Setting up mechanisms to track and report on their progress, ensuring they stay on course and maintain momentum. In essence, while the BRICS statement is ambitious, turning these ideas into reality will require a lot of hard work, strategic partnerships, and likely, gradual steps.

China's evolving diplomatic strategy in the Global South, particularly in Africa, represents a significant recalibration of its international engagement. By shifting the focus from financial investments to governance and capacity building, China is attempting to redefine its role as a partner that respects the sovereignty of developing nations. This approach, articulated by President Xi Jinping at the 2024 Forum for China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), promotes a model of Chinese-style modernization that stands in contrast to Western development paradigms. The emphasis on equality, non-interference, and governance training is particularly noteworthy. It resonates with many countries in the Global South that are wary of the conditionalities often associated with Western aid. By positioning itself as a supporter of sustainable development without the political strings attached, China is likely to appeal to nations seeking stability and growth on their own terms. Moreover, this strategy reflects a calculated response to past experiences, aiming to foster political alignment and goodwill in the Global South. As China reduces its loans and investments, it appears to be pivoting towards a model that prioritizes sustainable development and mutual respect, potentially increasing its influence and legitimacy in these regions. https://lnkd.in/gKSEeE8p

Our Research Analyst, Matilda Buchan, has written a piece analysing how the UK Government engages with China and how it compares with other Western countries. Some of the key takeaways are ⬇️ No Western country has a straightforward relationship with China. Most China strategies highlight its economic significance while also raising concerns surrounding human rights violations, national security and trade dependencies.   The US has demonstrated a constructive engagement strategy with China; since the start of 2023, there have been seven official visits, including five at cabinet level, allowing for collaboration on economic matters and dialogue on issues of contention. The UK has only seen one cabinet member visit China in the last 18 months. Engagement, policy and rhetoric have been inconsistent, stemming from the high turnover of Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries, each with differing views.   The EU aims to enforce a unified approach towards China, however these are differences across the bloc. Germany supports the EU’s de-risking approach but engagement has been inconsistent. Contrastingly, France's active engagement with China has signalled its desires to strengthen economic ties. Read more below ⬇️ https://lnkd.in/eJe9EMw5 If you would like to speak to one of our experts on the Middle East or Asia, get in touch with us here: https://lnkd.in/dJ752Qq4 #China #UK #asiahouse #elections #US #France #generalelection #EU #diplomacy