
Is Covid-19 a Geopolitical Game-Changer? - jdblair
https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/blog/covid-19-geopolitical-game-changer
======
MichaelMoser123
[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52104978](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52104978)
i think this analysis on the possible long term effects of this crisis is more
usefull. They say that the perceived risk of ordering parts from east asia is
now much higher and that they will likely prefer local producers because of
that perceived risk. (don't know if that is practical, as things nowadays are
much more specialized)

~~~
rubidium
Covid won’t do much to supply chains.

China’s decisions regarding intellectual property and trade secrets (IP),
however, haven’t changed and are the reason my (large) employer has stopped
sending anything sensitive there. We still sell to China but any IP entering
the country is assumed as forfeit.

Other countries are becoming more competitive even outside of IP
considerations.

I think we’ll see more and more “the Chinese economy” and “the US Et al
economy” but mainly divided by IP. Covid will be a minor blip on that scene.

~~~
bayesian_horse
It's easy to see that a lot of countries will be rethinking their supply
chains. Especially everything concerning the medical industry.

~~~
senectus1
yeah but its also easy to see capitalism deciding that the super cheap near
slave labor in china make those products much cheaper, why buy local when it
can be gotten for half the price +- 2 days delivery.

------
DecoPerson
Comparative advantage was an often used debate point by Australian
politicians. Unfortunately, only recently have studies on this topic started
to mention that some countries exploit what is essentially slave labour, and
that they have little regard for environmental consequences. I believe these
studies strongly influence our public servants so it’s unfortunate that such
important points have not being raised sooner by academics.

Higher worker costs, along with other reasons, means the Australian
manufacturing industry could not compete in the international market. With
import tariffs being steadily reduced since the 70s (from roughly 35% in 1970
to below 5% in 2016), the local industry could not compete against
international competitors in the local markets either. Without these
protections, all of our car manufacturers have shut down, for example.

So, we’re in a situation where the majority of our local manufacturing
industry has evaporated. We are dependent on the industries of other
countries.

This is only made possible by our abundance of in-demand and conveniently-
located raw materials. Our exports are mostly oil (33%), unprocessed ores
(29%) and uncut gems (7%) (other types of industries don’t come close, with
meat next at 4%). This has supported our dollar and given us fifty years of
paradise.

Clearly, this is not sustainable. Should our goods stop selling, our exporters
will be in trouble, our dollar will drop, and our importers (everyone!) will
be in trouble.

It shouldn’t be necessary, but I hope a silver lining of this recent crisis is
that it provokes our politicians into fixing this absurd situation. I do not
want to be dependent on the slave-driven & environmentally-damaging industries
of other countries.

~~~
blaser-waffle
Replace ore with oil, but otherwise the same story in Canada.

------
cultus
I'm not sure how this will affect the current strategic balance. It's safe to
say that China will recover faster, but they are so export-dependent that
their economy will still be crippled by global lower demand.

However, I think this also shows that large-scale government intervention in
the economy is necessary in the current world. Ostensibly free-market
economies aren't free anyway, as the Fed continues to show.

~~~
ceilingcorner
> However, I think this also shows that large-scale government intervention in
> the economy is necessary in the current world.

Mostly as a result of large-scale government action. Don't forget that the
majority of the economic 'damage' from the coronavirus is from the shutdown,
not from the virus itself. If lockdowns were determined on an individual /
localized basis, the outcome might have been different.

~~~
DeepYogurt
> If lockdowns were determined on an individual / localized basis, the outcome
> might have been different.

And medical systems would suffer from a horrific tragedy of the commons

~~~
dnautics
You don't know that. As California chose to suggest staying at home (it's
_basically voluntary_ not even enforced particularly aggressively except for a
handful of corner cases) earlier than the rest of the country, proving that
decentralized authority can lead to better outcomes.

Imagine if California chose to defer to federal authority; a huge chunk of 40
million people would have been put at higher risk.

~~~
slowmovintarget
We do know that, however, as we keep seeing it.

The reason no one can find toilet paper is not because there isn't enough,
it's because the public either went nuts mimicking Asian buying (they don't
produce TP, they did have a shortage), went nuts overbuying due to the
resulting apparent shortage, or went evil trying to take advantage of everyone
else by reselling and price gouging.

The same thing is happening with food now. Bread yeast that used to go for ~
$8 to $14 a box, can be found now only from resellers trying to charge upwards
of $70 for it.

In Massachusetts, early action on shelter-at-home, before the order went out,
seems to have helped, as it has in California. But in Southern states the
common thinking is that this is something that just happens to someone else.
It's just the flu. What's horrific about that is that even if New York, for
example, succeeds, it could come back anyway because of these folks.

They'll know it's denial when reality kills them in the middle of their
opinion-touting.

~~~
stcredzero
_But in Southern states the common thinking is that this is something that
just happens to someone else._

If one is in a rural environment, this view is understandable. Not seeing
one's neighbors (outside of now cancelled gatherings) may well be the norm.

 _It 's just the flu. What's horrific about that is that even if New York, for
example, succeeds, it could come back anyway because of these folks._

If there is an unlucky mutation and a 2nd go around, the likelihood of that is
driven by population. It's the population centers like New York which would
most likely produce this.

 _They 'll know it's denial when reality kills them in the middle of their
opinion-touting._

That's often how a free society works. People are free to make decisions, good
and bad, and others can then learn from their mistakes. We must be willing to
convince, not coerce, when we can.

------
zcw100
The only thing we know is something big happened and it's probably going to
have some effect. That's it. It's not like we don't have examples from history
to look at. Even with the clarity of hind site can you say what the effect of
the AIDS crisis was? Polio? Spanish flu? No we can't. Would things have been
different if they hadn't happened other than a lot of people wouldn't be dead?
Sure, but how would they have been different? Not so sure. I don't think it's
even worth speculating other than knowing that whatever you come up with is
probably going to be wrong.

~~~
wenc
I think it's possible to know more than just "there's going to be an effect"
from history. 1st order effects (i.e. this happened because of this) are
usually quite obvious and observable. For instance, are we going to see remote
work becoming more mainstream because of this? I think that is almost a
certainty at this point.

In simple systems, 1st order effects are dominant.

However you're right that in complex systems like geopolitics, the dominant
effects are not 1st order, but higher order (2nd, 3rd, 4th order) and those
are hard to isolate -- all the effects are mixed. Also, we can't measure the
counterfactuals ("what would have happened if...") because they didn't happen!
Of course, historians and writers will try to fill in the gaps with their
theories and invariably they're going to be wrong to various degrees and still
make the NYT Best Seller list.

That notwithstanding, we can still learn something (albeit limited) from the
1st order effects that are observable -- it's not all or nothing.

~~~
zcw100
They aren't obvious and observable other than your defining 1st order effects
that way. Remote work becoming more mainstream because of this isn't a
certainty at this point. It took a pandemic to get employers to allow it in a
large way, why would you assume that once that is gone you're going to keep
it? For all you know there will be a backlash and there will be less remote
work than before. Did you think you're going to come out of this with more
leverage with your employer?

------
donclark
Is Covid-19 a Geopolitical Game-Changer? I hope and pray that this is the
case. This may be the best time for us to make a change in the way the world
works. Our lives have been disrupted, and we need to strive to make lasting
changes for the greater good.

The internet, and our world is over-commercialized. The pandemic causing an
economic re-evaluation which may be the best opportunity we have to re-
evaluate our position. If not, and you think the advertiser/marketer/retail
market was invasive before... you aint seen nothing yet. They will need to try
every trick in the book x10 - repeatedly, at lighting speed - and invent new
tactics to boot. I know, this type of talk makes it seem like the Max Headroom
blipverts are the future.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekg45ub8bsk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekg45ub8bsk)

------
scottlocklin
What a complete rubbish article. Apparently the three possibilities as an
outcome are; 1) Nothing changes, 2) "China's rise is confirmed" (does this
even mean anything?) and .... 3) Biden is elected. I'm going to go out on a
limb and assert that these three choices do not span the space of
possibilities, or even the space of large probabilistic mass for the
possibilities, but they may span the space of the acceptable outcomes to the
clown who wrote it.

Let me propose an alternative 3 possibilities that presently seem more likely:

1) Autarky is recognized as not so bad after all, at least in strategic
resources

2) International institutions continue to not matter much in a crisis

3) Someone is elected (I could be wrong about this)

~~~
bayesian_horse
It's a good question whether the Covid-19 crisis is good or bad for Trump.

You might say Biden benefits because Trump looks so incompetent. But his
voters knew that already. Most of them vote for him because of a singular
issue in which they have the minority view: abortion, extreme gun rights and
white superiority. To these voters, nothing else matters, even if they were
totally aware of Trump's incompetency and corruption. I even think many
pretend to not notice that, because they don't want to admit how important
their single-issue is to them.

In my opinion, Covid-19 will be good for Trump because that is his only chance
to get the voter depression he needs to win against an overwhelmingly more
popular candidate, according to all the polls.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
Do you know Trump voters? Your depiction of them seems extremely bigoted and
does not reflect the reality I've experienced living in an overwhelming
Republican state. Trump's approval rating has been increasing and his
disapproval rating decreasing over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, so
your read on the situation does not seem to match reality.

While I agree that the handling could be better, I don't think Trump looks
that incompetent, especially when compared to other countries' leaders (most
of Europe is doing about as badly as the US) and organizations like the CDC
(masks don't work), the WHO (closing borders is racist), and the government of
New York (encouraging people to go to the movies and restaurants in March).

I think your view of Trump is preventing you from getting an accurate read on
reality. FYI I'm not a Republican and did not vote for Trump.

~~~
rootusrootus
> approval rating has been increasing

FWIW, that is not holding true. He got an uptick in approval of 2-3% early on,
but it has been slipping a bit since then, trending slowly back towards where
it was previously. About 45% approval, about 50% disapproval, so he's still
underwater.

------
mschuster91
Hmm. I would not be so certain for a Chinese rise-up after covid19. If you had
asked this question three months ago, no one would have doubted that China was
on track to be the dominant world power, given that the Trump presidency
trades American dominance for little to no gain (e.g. leaving Paris Accords,
retreating out of Iraq/Afghanistan/Kurdistan, while at the same time cozying
up with dictators and autocrats like North Korea or Saudi-Arabia), while at
the same time China exploits the reduction of Western help in both Africa
(where China now provides investment aid / work without the strings that are
usually attached to Western aid, like rules of democracy) and Europe itself
(where Italy, Greece, Spain and other countries, e.g. Croatia or Serbia, turn
to China for financial / logistical assistance as the EU is unwilling to help
out thanks to Germany/Austria/Netherlands opposing). Also, China abuses that
influence regularly to tune down criticism of e.g. the Muslim Gulags or the
Tibet situation, because a trade blockade or stop to supply money is an
effective threat that China can make as many countries depend on cheap Chinese
labor or money by now.

Now with Covid19 however? Many people and many corporations are effectively
forced to diversify their supply chains (Apple most famously) or to re-
nationalize critical production like ventilators or even mass goods such as
masks, gloves and overalls for medical staff; at the same time consumers in
most if not all nations will face a _massive_ lack of spending power on goods
that are not essential to their survival. Both of this will drastically reduce
the dependence of Western (and other) nations on China, and if Corona FINALLY
forces Germany and the Netherlands to drop their blockade of Eurobonds then
also China won't be needed as financer for poor-er EU countries.

On the other side, I would also not bet on the US to rise to fill the void
they themselves have left and China will leave, especially if Trump gets
reelected (his approval ratings are on record highs for whatever reason). I'd
rather expect a further deterioration of international institutions such as
the UN and even EU as states will resort to more nationalism and a decent load
of chaos in one or two years when there will be vaccinations available and
global travel will begin to flow again...

~~~
bayesian_horse
Even before Covid-19 I thought China would soon be hitting some form of glass
ceiling. Partly because of things like a virus that gets a head start on an
authoritarian, corruption-riddled government. If they had their sh*t together,
they would have enforced their ban on "exotic" meat already and the whole
episode might never even have started at all. And they also can't get a grip
on the African Swine Fever, for similar reasons, which also hampers economic
growth. Then there was the Sanlu milk powder scandal. Similar things echo
around modern Chinese history. Dishonesty can win in the short run, but it
hurts long-term.

Lack of openness means corruption, corruption means volatility, volatility
limits growth. Yes, they achieved a lot of great things for their people. But
without an open and much more honest society they will reach a ceiling. And
then there is the threat of some kind of "Economic World War" when the rest of
the world has had enough of Human rights violations of Third Reich proportion
(Falun Gong, Uighurs, etc) and their unfair trade practices.

------
mythrwy
The consensus is Covid-19 is a naturally occurring rather than engineered
virus. Everyone outside of a very small number of radical conspiracy theorists
understand this.

But here's a dark thought. China has just showed the West if there ever _is_ a
biowar, who will likely win.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
"The only way to win is not to play."

China certainly did not win. The best they could be thought to have done is
"lose less badly". Even that is questionable, depending on how much you
believe their statistics.

~~~
mythrwy
Did they close their whole country to control the spread? Are they mostly open
now? Did they have the same rate of infections and deaths (even if they fudge
numbers some)?

Look, I dislike CCP as much as anyone but I think we need to look at reality
so we can be prepared.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> Did they close their whole country to control the spread?

Yes, they did... eventually. You certainly could make a case that they did it
far too late (though that could also be said of other countries).

> Are they mostly open now?

Maybe? They say they are. Other people have questioned that claim.

> Did they have the same rate of infections and deaths (even if they fudge
> numbers some)?

Hard telling, if they fudge the numbers. There are _huge_ discrepancies
between the official numbers and what other people try to estimate by indirect
means (cremation urns, for example). Depending on who you believe, their death
toll may be horrific.

Mind you, I'm not saying that these other claims are correct. I'm saying that
we don't know that the official claims are correct, and if they're wrong, we
don't know how far off they are.

------
larrik
> the election of Mr. Biden to the White House is not impossible

As nice and warm and fuzzy it may be to believe that the Democrats regaining
the White House would solve/help these issues, I doubt there'd be much of a
difference. There weren't exactly huge top-down changes between Bush, Clinton,
Bush 2, and Obama.

~~~
mschuster91
> There weren't exactly huge top-down changes between Bush, Clinton, Bush 2,
> and Obama.

But at least neither of the four essentially _tanked_ US international
relations with allies like Trump did, by essentially dismantling American
influence everywhere from the UN to long-time allies such as Europe, South
Korea or the Kurds.

Another four years with Trump and the once "leader of the free world" will be
no leader any more.

~~~
Mountain_Skies
Why is it so important to you that the "free world" follow the United States
and by extension, one particular political party inside the United States. Why
can't the "free world" be free and not need to check in with the United States
for permission on everything? Is it really that important for the United
States, and one particular political party inside the United States, to have
control over the "free world"?

~~~
mschuster91
> Is it really that important for the United States, and one particular
> political party inside the United States, to have control over the "free
> world"?

(As a German) I _massively_ prefer a global system led by the US (or for what
it's worth also the EU if we could get our fucking act together...) and a
common basic value set (liberal democracy, rule of law, universal human
rights) than nationalist chaos (like what the EU is sadly heading towards) or,
worse, authoritarian/illiberal surveillance state systems like what China is
exporting.

As for the "one political party" I hope that the current administration has
disintegrated this party so hard that the USA _will_ get someone sane as
president again who fixes the issues that are no longer avoidable and that the
Republican Party goes down forever (many have already left the ship / been
forced out by Tea Party and now QAnon types). Obviously I'd prefer Sanders but
even _Biden_ would do IMO.

~~~
belorn
I am not sure I like the idea of a global system led by a country that has
been at war ever since world war 2 (arguable the cold war was not a war but
that is debatable).

The is a good reason why the US spend more on their military then the rest of
the world combined. They are at war. Same reason why their surveillance
operations operate indiscriminately against anyone they can target. They are
at war. Countries in peace time operate very differently from countries in war
time, and the behavior of the US is one of a country in war.

EU could be better but it was original designed to create a single market in
order to improve production and decrease the risk of war within EU. In order
to apply that model globally you would need to make a global single market,
and that concept has a lot of problems since you then need a single common
standard for all production of products, services and goods, and it need to be
uniformly enforced.

Neither seems such as good entity to put our hopes on for a common basic value
set in regard to liberal democracy, rule of law, and universal human rights.
It should also be noted that the US do not agree to the EU definition of
universal human rights, something that was quite talked about during bush and
obama era when officials argued in favor of torture as a interrogation method.

As a non-US citizen, I would like to see the US elect someone who want to end
their constant wars. Trump was almost such candidate with his "american first"
slogans, even if the chance of that actually happening was slim. Sanders is a
new chance, as he want to redirect military funding into social safety nets
and health care. Biden however, similar to clinton, has been part of the
government that increased funding to the military and in his public statements
there is nothing to imply that under their rule there will be finally peace
time.

~~~
mschuster91
> As a non-US citizen, I would like to see the US elect someone who want to
> end their constant wars.

But who and what follows after the US drop out and retreat? Just look at
Kurdistan: the Kurds are being all but eradicated by Erdogan and Assad.
Afghanistan is going to fall back to the Taliban Islamists. Iraq? Steering
towards collapse. Libya is essentially fucked beyond repair. China is free to
do whatever they want, same for Russia.

Human rights are only words on a paper when there is no one to back them
against those who openly crap on said paper. I agree the EU should be stepping
up to the voids that the US leaves, but unfortunately a chaotic power transfer
is chaotic and will result in suffering and death.

~~~
belorn
As Sweden took in a lot of refugees from the middle east I actually hear a lot
of their own views on the subject. As long as the rest of the world are
infusing the area with money in exchange for oil the wars there will continue.

There exist a good reason why nations stopped allowing money going to blood
diamonds. Inequality fuels conflict and oil money has a long and proven
history of increasing inequality. Cutting off the money river would do more to
stabilizing the region than any number of more military bases, bombs, drones
and invasions could ever achieve. Yes, china and Russia would jump in in order
to attempt seizing that oil in the absent of US interest, and in order to
prevent them we would need to make it worthless for them to do so. Just like
with money laundering we would have the new problem of oil laundering.

If we look at EU for inspiration, the peace inspired treaty that created it
was primarily focused on steel. Steel production was expensive, required a lot
of workers and energy, and involved a complex chain of inter-dependent
markets. Nation measured themselves in their ability to create steel. The iron
miners however did not get massively rich. Nor did the coal miners. EU managed
to connect the sources for iron, coal, and nuclear energy, and in large this
was the revolution in Europe for equality. The lower the friction of that
market the more interconnected the involved countries became. As we now move
away from a world focused on steel that union has seen increased instability.
Just now in corona times people are arguing if countries of more successful
management strategies will bail out those that is currently failing. We don't
really feel it like we used to do if one country in EU drop in equality.

The US tactic of using bombs and invasions in order to create equality did
also not work in the middle east. It might had worked in a steel focused era
such as that after the second world war. Similar the EU tactic might had
worked in the middle east if the oil market would behave more similar to that
of steel. Right now however I doubt either will create the equality needed for
peace. The most promising strategy would be to just leave them alone and make
sure that the oil is never going to be worth wasting blood over.

------
bayesian_horse
Short answer: Yes.

Before the pandemic I thought Trump has a very little chance to get reelected,
and he needed a bigger miracle than last time. That "miracle" might be this
pandemic. His support increased slightly, the pandemic might impact voter
turnout and the Republicans might find ways of using the pandemic to further
increase voter suppression. Four more years under Trump will depress American
influence further.

I also feared that bad international actors would strike before the election,
maybe more than one at a time, recognizing the US is at its weakest point in
decades and can only get stronger with a president that can actually read.
Examples would be Putin gobbling up territory in eastern Europe, North Korea
testing a nuclear bomb or even poking South Korea militarily, Iran reaching
the nuclear breakout or Israel launching a unilateral assault to stop it. Now,
that might not happen, because all those countries have their hands full...

~~~
war1025
Democrats have failed to field a candidate that is viable, which is Trump's
biggest advantage. Biden has been missing in action for weeks at this point.
My personal feeling is all the other candidates dropped out too soon.

~~~
freeone3000
Sanders is still in, and still has 42% of allocated delegates, with more than
half of delegates still unallocated. There's still a viable candidate in the
race.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Sanders probably isn't a viable candidate. He can't beat Biden head-to-head
(he got almost all his delegates when there were many candidates still in the
race). And even if he did, I don't think he can beat Trump.

On the other hand, I don't think Biden can, either. (Or at least I didn't
before Covid 19, which hasn't shown Trump to be the pinnacle of competent
leadership.) Is the cupboard really that bare at the Democratic Party, that
these candidates are the best they have?

~~~
bayesian_horse
All of these candidates were better than Trump, by any objective measure like
polls, IQ, eloquency, politics, grasp of domestic and international issues.

Biden and Sanders had been pulling crowds just as large as Trump had been.

The only path to victory for Trump is a really low voter turnout. Biden is
beating him in polls, by a much larger margin than Clinton did. Even in
"battleground" states. Covid-19 is the only factor on the horizon that could
lead to the kind of voter turnout that Trump needs to win. Otherwise, again
from polling and the mid-term elections, you can expect a record voter
turnout, especially on the democratic side.

~~~
rootusrootus
Trump has a rock solid base, so he only needs to convince a few swing voters
to jump on board. He could start pretending to be presidential (having someone
else write the speeches, and refusing to do any talking that isn't on a
teleprompter would be enough) and his approval ratings would shoot into the
stratosphere because expectations have been set so low up until now.

It is not a good idea to underestimate him. He defies expectations, over and
over, while doing things every day that would be the end of any other person's
political career.

~~~
bayesian_horse
The base is not enough. He needs more independents to vote for him than last
time. And according to most polls, he just doesn't have them.

You think he can act more presidential? No, he physically can't. He can barely
read. Reading a teleprompter is torture for him. He messes up about one
sentence in three (being generous) and takes pauses. He sounds like a hostage
reading a manuscript. He constitutionally can't tell the truth, and that is
evident from his long public life and has been even more densely proven
through his presidency. He really doesn't have the skills to even "act"
presidential or fake empathy.

He also is mentally incapable of not being in the spotlight. He is hijacking
the Covid-19 press briefings, turning them into campaign speeches. Lying both
about Covid-19 and about other issues like his Facebook popularity, his
impeachment or whatever else he is obsessed about.

------
vearwhershuh
An elite globalist thinks that more globalism is the answer to issues caused
by globalism.

OK.

