A summary of select international news: A deep crisis of the political economy in the West, a false plan for US recovery, a grand meeting of the “transatlantic family” in Germany, contest over Western leadership.
A gathering of senior decision-makers representing governments, international organisations, and intellectuals in the fields of statecraft, military, security, and the economy was recently held in Germany (16 – 18 February 2018). They discussed the present world situation in order to develop common strategies and agreements on the future course of events. The matter is pressing since the framework of international norms, the balance of power between states and alliances, and the underlying structure of political relations between major powers and blocs are shifting. Over 450 representatives attended, including heads of state, government ministers, and senior strategists. This was the 54th such assembly of the Munich Security Conference. The conference has sometimes been called the “transatlantic family meeting.” This is thanks to its roots as a strategic meeting between NATO members. According to the conference’s telling of its own history, the organisation began with, “[d]ebates in Munich concentrated on Western policy within the overarching framework of the Cold War confrontation.” Following the fall of the Soviet Union, the conference invited non-NATO members to attend while maintaining its focus on Western interest in the development of world affairs, or, according to the organisation “the core of the conference will always be transatlantic”, and, therefore, tied to the alliance between key European states, the US and Canada, as well as Australia and New Zealand as primary participants. They had much to discuss:
- at a time of intense warfare in the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa;
- with tensions and serious differences between NATO members such as between the existing governments of Turkey, the US, and Germany;
- with the ongoing Brexit negotiations prompting a structural change in the European Union;
- in a period during which French and German political leaders discuss increased military spending, and joint economic and military partnership within the framework of a transformed European Union;
- as conflict between the West and Russia heats up;
- when European and US senior politicians declare China a threat to the existing international systems and norms first laid down by core NATO members; and
- the economic strength of Western countries loses its near uncontested power relative to that of others, namely China.
Germany’s minister of foreign affairs, Sigmar Gabriel, commented on the divisions between the US and western European leaders on matters of policy, forms of leadership, and tensions that have in part resulted from degraded US control over European affairs, providing an opening to a resurgence of European policy independence. He shone a light on these issues while stating that many of Germany’s ruling elite “no longer recognize our America.” However, he underlined the importance of maintaining a Western or transatlantic alliance, stating that, “I am convinced cooperation between Europe and the US is important to maintain the architecture of freedom.” He’s being consistent, since he also made mention of European resurgence in the 2017 Munich Security Conference. “After 70 years of US leadership, it is not unreasonable for Washington to redefine its role in the world and in relation to Europe. Our job must now be to make sure that does not result in a vacuum and instead develop a strong Europe which is willing to shoulder responsibility,” he said then.
The political economic crisis faced by the West, and the crisis of leadership in the transatlantic alliance are illustrated by a number of events. Its leading country, the US, has an abundance of issues to deal with. One of these has been its deteriorating infrastructure: water pipes, roads, railways, bridges, mass transit systems, shipping ports, the electricity grid, and the like. The matter has grown in urgency as what was once deemed basic infrastructure fails to deliver. This can be seen throughout the country but the worst conditions are especially visible in cities and regions that are increasingly left to rot. So, there are geographical differences. The most famous of these is the city of Detroit, once a gleaming industrial capital and heartland of automotive manufacturing. Infrastructure and the built environment have numerous uses. Among them are human well-being, and economic utility. The built environment is a particular form of the crystalisation of fixed capital, the more or less immobile accumulation of a society’s wealth sedimented over generations. Capital flows to and through it. It is a node and passage for the circulation of social and economic activity. Roads are used to transit goods, medical centres keep workers healthy, schools can educate people, reliable electricity is necessary for business, provision of drinkable water is needed by all, ports are vital to trade, and a population that has difficulty transiting within cities and between regions is a drag on the efficiency of economic activity. A failing infrastructure is a source of great hardship for the people who have increasingly limited access to decent provisions of such resources – resources that are, by their very nature, social in the manner of their shared impact. That’s why there’s been ongoing discussion for the need to improve that country’s infrastructure: to repair what is there and to build anew. Under the given circumstances, US president Trump’s promise to initiateinfrastructure development has special importance. Further details of the plan were released this month within a 55 page document. The plan is now primarily not an investment but an incentive program. That is, the central government is supposed to front only $200 billion while the rest is meant to come from local governments and the private sector which will be incentivised to make these investments. Some of these incentives come in the form of sales of publicly held assets to private businesses or shifting budgetary responsibility from the federal government to local and regional governments.
Alongside infrastructure, housing is an issue of great concern. Obviously, since it’s necessary that people have a place to sleep and live. A problem has been growing regarding access to housing in many Western countries. Simply put, most people have trouble affording a decent home, and the cost of it is consuming a growing and alarming portion of a many people’s incomes. A dramatic example is given by professor Andrew Hindmoor in his book, What’s Left Now? In 1961 United Kingdom, the poorest 5% of the population spent about 15% of their final income to pay for housing, now some 45% of their income goes to cover housing. For the richest 5%, a little over 10% of their income was spent on housing in 1961, and this cost has decreased to a little below 10% of income. The poorest fifth of the United Kingdom’s population had 8% of the total national income in 2016. In the US, according to Pew Trust, the poorest third of private households had to use 40% of their incomes on housing (2014). When it comes to the quality of available housing, London’s Grenfell Tower fire is a reminder of what can happen when housing is poorly constructed, badly maintained, or neglected. About eight months ago, the high density residential tower caught fire and burned extremely rapidly. The building was encased in a flammable cladding. Many of the low income residents were trapped inside the inferno, while personal belongings burned and homes were destroyed. A recent publicity campaign was conducted as a response to the initial disaster but also to the drought of state support for victims and as yet indeterminate legal proceedings. Campaigners parked 3 large billboards in front of the country’s parliament building; on them was written in bold letters: “71 DEAD”, “AND STILL NO ARRESTS?”, “HOW COME?”
