In File Photo: Chinese President Xi Jinping (right) and President Duterte wave to the media following a welcome ceremony at Malacañang Palace on November 20, in Manila. Image credits: AP/Bullit Marquez
CHINA hopes the next Philippine president will continue President Duterte’s “independent foreign policy,” a senior ranking Chinese politician and retired diplomat said.
Madame Fu Ying, chairperson of the influential foreign affairs committee of the Chinese parliament, said China, the Philippines and the region benefited from Duterte’s pivot towards China when he assumed presidency in 2016.
“[Duterte’s] independent foreign policy has won him respect from countries in the region, including from China, and he is willing to face the difficult issues with China, and find proper solutions, and he was able to reach consensus with the Chinese leaders, and allowing the relationship to come out of a difficult time and gain vitality,” Fu Ying said during the recent virtual conference billed as the 5th Manila Forum for Philippine-China Relations.
“It’s not only good for the two countries, two peoples, but also good for the region. So I hope that in the future, whoever is succeeding him will be able to wisely, courageously, and responsibly carry out Philippine independent foreign policy,” Fu Ying added.
Fu Ying had served as the Chinese Ambassador to Manila for two years from 1998 to 2000, at the time when relations between Manila and Beijing were strained as a result of China’s increased occupation of the Panganiban Reef (international name: Mischief Reef) in the West Philippine Sea. She was also appointed as the Chinese ambassador to Australia and the United Kingdom, before being promoted as vice foreign minister of China. Now, she chairs the foreign affairs committee of the National People’s Congress, and US think tanks have described her as a “senior figure in a growing number of US-China interactions.”
China’s State Counsellor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi also noted that Duterte’s pivot to China was a “strategic decision to improve the relations” between Manila and Beijing.
“Rainbows appeared after the rainstorms,” Wang Yi said in a recorded speech played during the virtual forum.
Fu Ying said she has been watching the recent spat between the Philippines and China over the West Philippine Sea, referring to reports of Chinese Coast Guard firing water cannon on a Philippine boat that transported food to Filipino soldiers stationed at Ayungin Shoal (international name: Second Thomas Shoal) last November. Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr. protested the incident in “strongest terms” to a point of mentioning the treaty alliance the Philippines has with the United States.
“I have been watching the recent occasional hyping up of the disputes caused by some incidents related to some shoals in China’s Nansha Islands [also known as the Spratly Islands] and feel a bit concerned, hoping the two sides would properly handle it and avoid rolling back the mutual trust that both sides have worked so hard to build in the past years,” Fu Ying said.
Fu Ying suggested that both sides “stay firmly on the positive side” of the relationship and put the Spratly Islands dispute “at an appropriate place and properly handled through dialogues.” The Chinese foreign minister went further, saying that both sides should prevent the Spratly island issue from affecting or “taking hostage” the overall bilateral relationship.
She warned that the West Philippine Sea dispute will be used as an election issue in the Philippines in the upcoming presidential elections in May this year.
“I am aware that the election season is unfolding in Manila. The past experience shows that during such time, some people tend to bring up the disputes with China or try to stand tough against China which appear to be ‘politically correct.’
“Some Filipino scholars are expressing concerns of such tendency, stating that the disputes should not become a defining issue for our relations.
“I agree with such views and hope those who have foresight and stand for China-Philippines friendship can speak up and provide positive influence and we should work together to keep our relations on the right track,” Fu Ying said.
Wang Yi reassured the Philippines that “China will absolutely not use its strength to bully smaller countries, and we never believe in a winner-takes-all approach.”
“We hope to work with the Philippines to find ways to properly manage and resolve the issue in the spirit of goodwill and pragmatism. We need to come up with the resolve as soon as possible to advance joint development without prejudice to either side’s rights and claims, so that we can turn the South China Sea issue from a challenge into an opportunity and a positive factor conducive to the development of the Philippines and the friendship between our two peoples,” Wang Yi added.
Si la France veut avoir une chance se réindustrialiser et de se doter d’un système productif efficace, elle n’a d’autre choix que de mettre les bouchées doubles dans les nouvelles technologies. Par Jacques Moulin, directeur général du think tank IDATE DigiWorld.
Jacques Moulin
Jacques Moulin, le directeur général de l’IDATE. (Crédits : DR)
Plus de 4,5 milliards d’individus ont été confinés : jamais dans l’histoire de l’humanité, une crise sanitaire n’avait eu un tel impact. La pandémie a agi comme révélateur des fragilités de nos économies et de nos sociétés. Mais les confinements à répétition ont constitué aussi un accélérateur de l’hyperdigitalisation de notre civilisation. A tous les sceptiques du « big data », de l’IOT, de la 5G, le maintien de l’activité économique, de l’enseignement, de la médecine, – et bien sûr la recherche pour le vaccin – mais aussi des loisirs et du lien social, en bref de notre survie, aura été la preuve irréfutable de l’utilité du digital.
Selon Churchill, « il ne faut jamais gaspiller une bonne crise », et nous vivons actuellement un momentum qui offre l’opportunité de bâtir de nouveaux modèles. Il n’y aura pas de retour en arrière. Si le futur sera résolument digital, tout ce qui est digital ne fait pas sens. Encore faut-il que les transformations soient régies par une logique de progrès, d’inclusion économique et sociétale. Il nous faut bien sûr penser Europe. Un projet industriel digital européen inclusif, durable et responsable est la condition sine qua non pour échapper au déterminisme de la bipolarisation de l’échiquier mondial. L’Europe se doit de construire une alternative, empreinte de ses valeurs et forte de ses capacités d’innovation, aux modèles chinois et américains.
Cette voie se co-construira avec les territoires. La centralisation à outrance, la fracture numérique ont démontré leur logique d’exclusion. Nous ne pouvons plus feindre d’ignorer la fragilité des populations qui, par géographie ou par éducation, sont exclues d’internet. L’inclusion repose sur une infrastructure robuste. Nous pouvons pousser un cocorico pour le plan « Très Haut Débit » : la France est dans les premiers pays au monde et le premier pays d’Europe, à fibrer son territoire. Il nous faut désormais accompagner une offre de solutions régionales enrichies.
Le numérique, gage d’une France souveraine
Puisque tout ce qui peut être digitalisé sera digitalisé, seuls résisteront les entreprises, Etats et territoires qui mettent en action leur feuille de route digitale. Cela suppose de penser long terme car les investissements ne peuvent s’insérer dans la dimension temporelle du mandat électif. L’élu post-covid sera nécessairement visionnaire. Clé de voute de la réindustrialisation 4.0, le numérique est le gage d’une France et d’une Europe souveraines et compétitives. Souveraineté ne signifie ni repli sur soi ni protectionnisme mais partenariats lucides et équilibrés pour ne pas perdre en rapidité de transformation.
La « 5G Factory » de Mercedes est éclairante : l’utilisation de la 5G couplée au big data, à la robotique entraîne un gain de productivité de 25% et, grâce à la maintenance prédictive, permet d’assembler avec plus de fiabilité, différents modèles de véhicules sur une même chaine. Dans le secteur de la santé, le numérique affirme un véritable saut « quantique » : la transmission à distance de radios avec la 5G permet de sauver des vies dans des services d’urgence. Le couple « numérique et santé » contribue aussi à lutter contre les déserts médicaux si nombreux en France.
Or, force est de constater qu’encore trop d’industriels français sont frileux face aux investissements nécessaires pour accompagner la révolution 5G et engager la transition 4.0. Or, à l’heure digitale, le plus rapide gagne. L’industrie allemande, convaincue sans tergiversation de l’avantage concurrentiel de la 5G, s’est mobilisée pour être admise à l’attribution des fréquences. La France doit accélérer sa mue : il en va de la crédibilité de ses objectifs déclarés de ré-industrialisation. Est-ce anecdotique si Tesla et Toyota avec leur véhicule green rafle la mise des flottes de taxis parisiens ?
Réformer le capital-risque
Certes, il nous faut aussi réformer le capital-risque français trop timoré : une startup bénéficie de 8,3 fois plus de capital aux Etats-Unis qu’en Europe. Pire encore : la France, terre de médaillés Field, est à la traîne pour l’enseignement des mathématiques. Investir dans l’éducation et la recherche est vitale pour rester dans la course. La majorité des métiers dans les 10 prochaines années n’existe pas encore. Il nous faut repenser les modes d’apprentissage car désormais une vie professionnelle sera composée de 10 parcours différents.
La pandémie a banalisé le recours au télétravail. L’aspiration à travailler autrement – ne parle-t’on pas de néo-ruralité ? – est une opportunité inédite pour les territoires qui veulent développer leur attractivité, accompagner la création d’écosystèmes créateurs d’emploi. Le rôle de l’élu, agrégateur de ces écosystèmes, est dès lors central. Le projet que nous prônons au sein de l’IDATE DigiWorld est inclusif, responsable et durable. Pour cela, il doit tout d’abord s’exercer dans un cadre régulé. Les Digital Market Act/Digital Service Act européens, en sont un premier pas.
Le numérique est aussi le levier pour bâtir une société plus « green » et responsable. Le « green by design » intégrant nativement les préoccupations environnementale et énergétique est un impératif. Ainsi, le digital est-il la clé pour opérer notre « saut de grenouille » et « être absolument moderne ».
Il est temps que la France accompagne sa mutation en accélérant la modernisation de son système productif, en se dotant des « Humanités du numérique » : former chaque citoyen à la compréhension des enjeux du numérique, à l’utilité de ses actes digitaux au quotidien et investir dans la préparation aux emplois de demain, tout en favorisant la R&D au travers de projets européens. Et bien courons maintenant !
Le chef de la diplomatie européenne, Josep Borrell. STEPHANE MAHE / REUTERS
Le chef de la diplomatie européenne Josep Borrell a déclaré lundi redouter une «intégration de fait» à la Russie des régions de l’Ukraine non contrôlées par Kiev. «Je suis de plus en plus préoccupé par la situation dans les régions non contrôlées par Kiev, car elles s’écartent de plus en plus de l’Ukraine et se rapprochent de plus en plus de la Russie», a-t-il expliqué lors d’une audition par la Commission des Affaires étrangères du Parlement européen.
La région du Donbass, dans l’est de l’Ukraine, pourrait notamment se voir progressivement intégrée «de fait» à la Russie, a expliqué Josep Borrell aux eurodéputés, réunis à Strasbourg pour une session plénière du Parlement. Depuis sept ans, cette zone est déchirée par une guerre entre Kiev et des séparatistes prorusses, et le règlement politique du conflit, prévu par les accords de Minsk de 2015, est dans l’impasse. «La concentration par la Russie de forces à la frontière de l’Ukraine est liée à cette intégration (…) Une attaque massive en Ukraine n’est pas le scénario le plus probable, mais il existe d’autres moyens d’attaquer, comme les cyberattaques», a commenté Josep Borrell.
L’Ukraine a justement été victime, dans la nuit de jeudi à vendredi, d’un vaste piratage informatique ciblant les sites internet de plusieurs ministères. Kiev a assuré dimanche avoir des «preuves» de l’implication de la Russie dans cette cyberattaque. «Nous travaillons sur au moins sept scénarios différents. Je ne pense pas que nous allons immédiatement passer au pire scénario, mais il y en a plusieurs dans lesquels la situation pourrait être suffisamment dangereuse pour nécessiter un état d’alerte permanent», a jugé Josep Borrell.
Les Européens espèrent encore convaincre le président russe Vladimir Poutine de renoncer à une invasion de l’Ukraine, mais ils ont commencé vendredi à préparer de «lourdes» sanctions pour l’en «dissuader», lors d’une réunion informelle jeudi et vendredi à Brest (ouest de la France). Souhaitant affirmer leur crédibilité vis-à-vis de l’allié américain, ils ont rappelé leur mise en garde contre les conséquences d’une nouvelle agression militaire russe contre l’Ukraine. «Elle aura des conséquences et un coût par le biais de sanctions», a souligné Josep Borrell. Ces dernières seront discutées lors d’une réunion des ministres européens des Affaires étrangères le 24 janvier à Bruxelles, a-t-il précisé.
Nuclearelectrica has managed to continue or to develop major investment projects in 2021 whilst increasing its perspectives on the capitals market.
“2021 was a good year for Nuclearelectrica: financially, operationally, investment, human resources wise and innovation wise. (…) Most of my efforts in 2021 were directed towards Nuclearelectrica’s investment projects within the context of decarbonization coupled with Romania’s need for a robust and safe energy system,” Cosmin Ghita, CEO Nuclearelectrica told The Diplomat-Bucharest.
COMMITMENT TO PERFORMANCE | Business Evolution, Projects, PERFORMANCE, Figures
How would you describe the evolution of your company in 2021?
“2021 was a good year for Nuclearelectrica: financially, operationally, investment, human resources wise and innovation wise. We have accomplished a lot in 2021, we have managed to continue or to develop major investment projects, to take the new human resource strategy to a new level, to digitalize significantly our company, to increase our position and perspectives on the capital market.
However most of my efforts in 2021 were directed towards Nuclearelectrica’s investment projects within the context of decarbonization coupled with Romania’s need for a robust and safe energy system. We continued the refurbishment of Unit 1, according to the schedule, and we are to complete the first stage of the project in early 2022, the feasibility study. The purpose is to have another 30 years of safe and clean operation after 2028, in a very efficient and cost-effective manner. Refurbishments of nuclear units are confirmed to have the lowest levelized cost of electricity of all energy sources, renewables included.
We also continued the Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4 Project. We reoperationalized EnergoNuclear, the project company, and already signed one major contract with CANDU Energy as part of the first stage of the project. We are doing our best to develop the project within the established timeframe and have Unit 3 connected to the grid in 2030 and Unit 4 in 2031, just at the right time for Romania to meet its decarbonization targets in a reliable manner whilst phasing out coal-based capacities. According to the PNIESC, Romania’s aim is to generate 55% clean energy by 2030 and nuclear, as many international studies support, is an essential part of this objective.
Also, an equally important project for Romania’s meeting its decarbonation targets and energy security are the small modular reactors deployment. We have worked this year to achieve this intention with NuScale technology, around 2028. We have teamed up with NuScale, the US based company which owns the most advanced and the only licensed SMR technology, in order to provide a stable and clean energy alternative to areas where coal will no longer be an option and, at the same time, allow these areas to continue to socio-economically develop. We are looking at a 6 module power plant, with an installed capacity of 462 MWe, able to generate 193 permanent power plant jobs, 1.500 construction jobs, 2.300 manufacturing jobs and help Romania avoid 4 tons of CO2 emissions per year.
In addition to these benefits, Romania, based on its 25 years of nuclear expertise, has a huge opportunity to be at the forefront of SMR development in the region by developing a strong domestic supply chain that could further expand regionally and by training specialists given the fact that Romania will be the first country in the region to own and operate a SMR full scope simulator.”
What were your company’s business achievements in 2021?
“I will briefly state a few as last year we have set ourselves quite a busy agenda for 2021, and looking back today I can proudly say that Nuclearelectrica team has managed to achieve most of our objectives, even though it was a difficult year:
Maintain excellence in operation and nuclear safety and our top position worldwide in terms of capacity factor which is rewarding as in 2021 we celebrated 25 years of operation of Unit 1.
Increase in our financial results as part of a solid sales strategy
Near Completion of stage 1 of the Refurbishment project of Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 according to the schedule, even if a major part of this stage unfolded throughout 2020 and 2021 difficult pandemic years
Continuation of Cernavoda NPP Units 3 and 4 Project and signing of the first contract with CANDU Energy
The teaming agreement with NuScale for the deployment of SMRs in 2028 and the $ 1,2 million grant from USTDA, in early 2021, to assess potential sites for SMR deployment
Implementation of the HR strategy, as we had an ambitious plan to hire 500 people by the end of 2021 and we succeeded in hiring more than 500. Besides this, we aim at growing a new generation of specialists and for this we offer as well scholarship programs, apprenticeship, internship, mentorship and dual learning systems.
The acquisition of a part of Feldioara’s assets, namely the processing line, which will allow us to develop our internal fuel processing and manufacturing capabilities and maintain Romania’s nuclear fuel integrated capabilities doubled by the diversification of the company’s raw material supply possibilities.
And of course, SNN’s positioning on the capital market with a constantly appreciating share price, market capitalization and increased interest from the investor community.
However, all of the above are the result of a great team of specialists to whom I would like to thank and acknowledge their professionalism every chance I get.”
STRATEGY & VISION | RETHINK STRATEGY & PRIORITIES
What challenges have you faced as a CEO/ leader during 2021?
“It was a very busy year, and somehow a tough continuation of 2020, so my first concern was the wellbeing of my colleagues, as they are the driving force of every project, idea, result of the company. Therefore, making sure that we stay safe and protected was a top priority and a challenge. Besides this, challenges are objectives and they are inherent to any significant endeavor that an organization goes through. Nonetheless, a significant factor that kept us moving forward at a rapid pace was an already build in resilience from previous years and people’s professionalism, their expertise, capability and adaptability to working in less than normal conditions.”
What priorities and business strategy focus do you have in 2022?
“Definitely the continuation of our strategic investment projects: refurbishment of Unit 1, Unit 3 and 4, small modular reactors and, in this context, training and growing our new nuclear generation. These 3 main projects are complementary: what large fleet reactors lack is added by SMRs, in terms of flexibility, remote access, backup for renewables. Our purpose is to become a regional trendsetter in nuclear – we will do this by showcasing nuclear energy clear benefits, the clean energy which is reliable, cost effective and stable, with outstanding socio-economic advantages; by develop Nuclearelectica, the Romanian supply chain; by exporting our expertise; by acting as a strategic supporter for decarbonization, energy security, consumer protection. By 2031, we aim to reach 66% contribution of clean nuclear energy in Romania’s energy mix. There’s no real, time and cost efficient decarbonization without nuclear energy.”
PEOPLE & COMMUNITY | FOCUS ON SAFETY, SOCIAL APPROACH, LEVERAGE THE POWER OF COMMUNITY
What initiatives & projects did the company run in 2021 in CSR and social projects?
“For 2021 we split our CSR budget into 2 major directions: half of it for the Cernavoda community as we are responsible for the wellbeing of the communities we activate in. We supported educational and medical programs, trying to provide the community with better educational tools and facilitate their access to reliable healthcare. Also, we offered as well as environmental support for the forestation of certain areas that needed such activities. The other half was directed for the rest of the country, proving financial support on educational, medical and environmental projects, since our CSR strategy for 2021 was tailored to include these three main areas based on an assessment of needs.”
KEEN ON GREEN | SUSTAINABLE, GREENER, COMMUNITY &ENVIRONMENTALLY FOCUS
“Nuclear energy is a big part of the decarbonization solution, therefore every project we develop has a definite clean environment and sustainability component. The reason nuclear is a solid decarbonization and friendly environmental solution is the lack of CO2 emissions, NOx emissions, NOx emissions. Actually, by operating two CANDU reactors we avoid the release of 10 million tons of CO2 per year and after 2031, with 4 CANDU reactors running, we will reach 20 millions tons of CO2 avoided each year, which will probably place us as the most important clean energy generator in Romania. If we add a 6 module SMR power plant, 4 million tons of CO2 avoided will be added every single year.
We are extremely responsible with our burnt fuel, which is stored onsite in a water pool for the first 6 years after its removal from the reactor and then for 50 years into a Fuel Storage which 24/7 monitored by AIEA. The environmental component is extremely regulated and our doses are way below the legal limits.
Furthermore, we are assessing and implementing every solution to enhance our environmental footprint and one of our investment project, the Tritium Removal Facility, a 190 million Euro Project is in full development process.
Corroborated, as mentioned, our CSR programs are very much in sync with our operational and investment projects since we are a keen supporter of clean air, hence our involvement in forestation.”
DIGITAL DNA | Grasping tech, digital innovation, customer -driven, building new bridges
“We started our digital innovation strategy in 2019, however the COVID19 pandemic forced us to accelerate the pace in 2020. Our purpose was to facilitate working processes, HR management, e-learning, procurement processes, uniformization of company processes, digitalization of certain production processes, internal infrastructure and provide cyber safety of the data and employees.
From 2019, throughout 2020 and 2021, we have managed to implement 12 digital innovation projects, we have 16 digital innovation projects under implementation process, so all together our strategy included 28 projects.
In future, very few companies will continue to work in the traditional manner. We are not looking towards digital innovation because this is a trend, but because our company needs are as such. Digital innovation protects employees, enables their work and time, protects company infrastructure and processes. The future is digital.”
Could cryptocurrencies one day bring down the banking system? These decentralized technologies have already shown the potential for disrupting finance, which craves a faster, cheaper, and freer system. If people choose control over their money and identities over security, the fears of financial authorities may be realized.
The crypto boom is threatening conventional finance
Covid-19 has revived discontent with financial authorities
Central banks and regulators will not stand idly by
Central banks and regulators will not stand idly by
Could cryptocurrencies bring down the banking system – and, with it, the authorities who oversee it? Two years ago, such a question would have made central bankers laugh.
It no longer does. During a September Eurofi conference in Ljubljana, seasoned European policymaker Benoit Coeure laid out an alarming scenario: “The financial system is shifting under our feet.” In a speech intended above all as a wake-up call for financial supervisors, the French economist insisted that “central banks have to act while the current system is still in place – and to act now.”
Unforeseen obsolescence
The centralized financial system as we know it could in fact disappear. Not in a tragic fight to the death, nor following a systemic collapse at a larger scale than the one that triggered the 2008 banking crisis. Rather, this time, the traditional banking system may be silently pushed to the margins after having become inadequate, irrelevant, and outdated – in other words, incapable of adapting to a drastically changing world.
What worries Mr. Coeure most is the crushing technological superiority of decentralized cryptocurrencies, which – after only a few years in existence – have proved they have the potential to disrupt finance.
The former European Central Bank (ECB) executive board member is no tech fearmonger. Since 2020, as the chair of the Innovation Hub at the Basel-based Bank of International Settlements (BIS), he has been on a mission to help policymakers and technocrats around the world develop central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
The ex-central banker is convinced that CBDCs (i.e., digital versions of fiat currencies) are the only option central banks have today if they want to stay in the game – let alone to maintain their leading role in the financial system. The problem, Mr. Coeure recognizes, is that CBCDs will take years to be rolled out, while privately issued digital assets and stablecoins are already there.
Dangerous animals
Meanwhile, there are several thousand cryptocurrencies in existence; the top 20 make up about 90 percent of the market.
In spite of extreme price fluctuations of the top cryptocurrencies since their inception, more and more people are tempted to jump ahead. As of June 2021, there were already 221 million users worldwide, including 120 million using bitcoin alone. This boom has only just begun.
The pandemic played an important part in what appears to be a bandwagon effect. The hype surrounding crypto – or to be more precise, sugarcoated marketing playing down people’s legitimate fears and concerns – has fueled investors’ optimism bias: the overconfident belief, common to all gamblers, that they are going to win rather than lose big.
Despite their growing popularity, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are still far from being a conventional way to invest money. Investors are often blind to the fact that bitcoin, after all, has no intrinsic (i.e., real) value. Normally, investments are made in view of future income. This is not the case for bitcoin; as one financial analyst put it, “one cannot invest in BTC, one can only speculate in BTC.”
It is no coincidence that the pandemic has revived markets’ discontent with monetary authorities.
Stablecoins, for their part, appear less volatile and therefore less exposed to the risk of a brutal price crash. In contrast to bitcoin, they are tied to the value of fiat money (usually the United States dollar) or any other asset with real value (such as gold, silver, oil). Still, it remains difficult for the inexperienced investor to learn his or her way through a seemingly opaque and chaotic market.
Fabio Panetta, the Italian economist who replaced Benoit Coeure at the ECB’s executive board in 2020, has used harsh words to describe what he even refuses to call “currencies.” “Crypto-assets are very dangerous animals,” he said.
He is not wrong; but does it make sense to think that such high-risk assets could be the future of money? Is it really conceivable that the banking system, central bank money and their powerful guarantors of last resort – states and central banks — could be swept away? Perhaps only if a problem emerged, shaking the markets’ perceptions of central bank money and policy.
Broken trust
Indeed, such a problem may have come to light in 2008. Bitcoin’s inception in 2009 is often viewed as an act of defiance against the centralized banking system. The global financial crisis revealed that misconduct had for long become the norm in the banking industry, and that much of the regulatory frameworks in place had been a failure.
To repair those frameworks, central banks were given new assignments. Not only did they become intransigent banking supervisors and regulators; they aspired to become a new kind of fiscal power, in command of steering the economies in times of crises and beyond.
The ECB is a case in point. It stretched to breaking point its original, narrowly defined mandate of maintaining price stability in the eurozone. Unlike other central banks, it had to face a sovereign debt crisis – which, in 2012, almost brought down the EU’s common currency. Even if markets’ trust in sovereign money could be restored (through then-President Mario Draghi’s famous commitment to do “whatever it takes” to save the euro), it never fully recovered.
It is no coincidence that the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and its host of authoritarian policy responses (previously unseen in democratic nations) revived markets’ discontent with monetary authorities. For instance, savers increasingly perceive the persistently low (or sometimes even negative) interest rates as an illegitimate tax on their deposits. For long, they meekly accepted the creeping expropriation as a necessary (and temporary) evil in times of crises. Their tolerance level is dropping as they suspect that central banks will monetize part of governments’ colossal Covid debt through inflation.
With inflation on the rise and no end to financial repression in sight, crypto attracts even low-risk-profile investors. Some adopt a devil-may-care attitude, weighing the probability of losing (but also gaining) money in a gambling game against the certainty of losing in the fiat system. In a way, they send a message to central banks: “you’ve gone too far.”
Freedom call
What the crypto rush reveals above all is that markets crave alternative finance. They want it to be faster, cheaper, more rewarding – and, above all, freer.
Safety is important too. But, as revealed by the ECB’s recent public consultation on a digital euro, privacy is valued very highly by customers these days. Maybe the stringent transparency requirements imposed by the current banking regulations – obsessed with money laundering, tax evasion and financing of terrorism – have simply become too intrusive for the taste of many citizens.
Crypto entrepreneurs have heard the message. As one prosperous start-up advertises its financial offering: “Our goal is to disrupt the financial industry, one happy user at a time, and introduce financial freedom through crypto.”
Unbank the world
Newcomers have recently challenged commercial banks’ business models by creating open-source protocols that replicate existing financial instruments within a decentralized architecture. Their blockchain- and smart contract-based services promise to revolutionize payments, savings, lending, trading, asset management, derivatives, and insurance.
The pioneers of decentralized finance (DeFi) share a common goal: knock off their pedestal the middlemen and gatekeepers that have domineered centralized finance so far. Today, DeFi is among the fastest-growing sectors in the crypto world. According to one of the players involved, its market size is already measured in the trillions.
Yet it may still only be in its infancy. For the moment, DeFi is a playground essentially for experienced investors, with knowledge barriers remaining high.
Technology might soon render possible a large-scale investor revolution. Once access to DeFi gets easier, retail bankers might have a real reason to worry. DeFi markets could attract virtually anyone who has a smartphone and an internet connection.
Moreover, 1.7 billion adults worldwide are excluded from the traditional banking sector. DeFi could provide microfinance solutions to those unbanked, usually low-income individuals, opening up new prospects. In the world of DeFi, no credit amount is too small to be granted. Financing opportunities might arise that so far would have been unthinkable.
One can only imagine the positive impact on developing countries – not to mention those where authoritarian or irresponsible governments destroy the value of national currencies and the wealth of citizens.
Bridge builders
So far, DeFi is largely unregulated. Permissionless and censorship-resistant ecosystems enable perfectly anonymous users to interact on peer-to-peer trading platforms – at their own risk. None of the compliance procedures or mandatory disclosure requirements at the heart of today’s banking system, such as Know Your Customer (KYC) or Anti-Money Laundering (AML), need to be applied in those settings.
This scares off many potential users, notably in Western countries, where regulation is highly valued. Some companies are currently exploring a new market niche by providing crypto-services to those who want to take a safer road, preferring to turn to “regulated” institutions that trade and store crypto-assets on their behalf.
Market leaders Celsius and BlockFi present themselves as “centralized” blockchain-based companies, which perform KYC and comply with AML. In a way, their platforms create a bank-like environment meant to give crypto-beginners a sense of security – albeit a distorted one, as the companies’ accounts have been hacked more than once.
In order to provide investors with more secure and easy access to cryptoassets, other DeFi platforms seek to bridge the gap between blockchain-based finance and traditional capital markets. For example, Defi Technologies Inc. offers so-called digital-asset-exchange-traded-products (ETPs), listed on regulated stock exchanges.
Central banks and regulators will not stand idly by while decentralized finance cuts the ground from under their feet.
“Crypto-banks” and digital asset investment firms currently have the wind in their sails. They are the ones that could precipitate society’s move to digital finance.
The question is, for how long? Sooner or later, big incumbent banks might challenge them, building blockchain infrastructures of their own. But only a few have so far been able to get a foot into crypto, let alone disrupt the disrupters.
A recent study revealed a widening of the gap between leading banking institutions and those lagging behind. It looks as though crypto is already sorting out winners from losers.
Scenarios
Central banks and regulators will not stand idly by while decentralized finance cuts the ground from under their feet. They will come up with new regulations.
Already, in September 2020, the European Commission published a proposal for a regulation of the “Markets in Crypto-Assets” (MiCA). The document was drafted largely in reaction to Facebook’s Libra announcement, perceived as a threat to national currencies. In the meantime, Libra (rebranded Diem) was watered down to a simple dollar-backed stablecoin and is nowhere close to being issued. DeFi, on the other hand, gained momentum precisely in 2020-2021 – and is at risk of becoming MiCA’s first collateral damage.
Fortunately or not, MiCA is expected to enter into force only in late 2024. By then, many of its provisions may be obsolete. Compared to regulators, crypto innovators move at lightspeed.
Policymakers are “increasingly worried about being left behind,” Benoit Coeure admitted during a conference in Geneva. Could CBDCs get them back into the race? Mr. Coeure seems skeptical: “The time has passed for central banks to get going,” he said in Ljubljana.
A 2021 BIS study confirmed that even though most central banks have a keen interest in CBDCs (and some already “experiment” with the technology), only a handful are actually running pilot programs.
The People’s Bank of China is a front-runner. The ECB is among those that still “investigate;” it recently stated it wanted to get “ready” to launch a digital euro, but will not necessarily do so.
A host of technical (notably security-related) issues remain unsolved. The potential disintermediation of banks is another tricky problem. For the banking sector, a retail CBDC – if not well managed – could become a threat far greater than DeFi.
Finally, there is the question of why consumers would prefer CBDCs to decentralized cryptocurrencies.
The likes of Mr. Coeure hope that if privacy and safety principles were to rule, central banks will come out on top. The precise opposite might happen: the fact that digital cash gives central banks the power to track end-users’ spending in real time may in fact have a deterrent effect. Citizens today may be used to a high level of surveillance, but CBDCs could become the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
At some point, people might want to regain control over their money and identities. Many will desert centralized finance and turn to privacy-protecting DeFi platforms. Self-sovereign identity at consumer scale could become a pillar of the future financial landscape.
Le chef de la diplomatie européenne, Josep Borrell, se rend en Ukraine pour soutenir Kiev face à l’agressivité de Moscou. Pour l’Union européenne, il s’agit d’un véritable test de crédibilité de son action extérieure.
Le chef de la diplomatie européenne, Josep Borrell, au dernier Sommet européen de décembre 2021, où il fut beaucoup question de la Russie. (Kenzo Tribouillard/Pool via REUTERS)
Publié le 4 janv. 2022 à 17:20
Pour son premier déplacement de 2022, Josep Borrell tient visiblement à faire passer un message aux Etats-Unis et à la Russie. En se rendant du 4 au 6 janvier en Ukraine, jusque sur la ligne de front où s’opposent les forces de Kiev aux séparatistes prorusses, le chef de la diplomatie européenne espère signaler à Moscou et à Washington qu’ils ne peuvent s’entretenir de l’avenir de cette région sans les Européens – des pourparlers entre responsables américains et russes sur l’Ukraine doivent avoir lieu les 9 et 10 janvier à Genève.
« Toute discussion sur la sécurité européenne doit se faire en coordination avec l’UE et avec sa participation», a déclaré le Haut Représentant de l’UE. «Nous ne voulons pas et ne devons pas être un spectateur non impliqué, avec des décisions prises au-dessus de nos têtes», a-t-il ajouté, un an après l’ humiliation diplomatique que lui avait infligée le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères. Lors d’une conférence de presse, Sergueï Lavrov avait fustigé l’arrogance des Européens, après avoir expulsé trois diplomates de l’Union sans en avertir son homologue.
Souveraineté
Accompagné du ministre ukrainien des Affaires étrangères, Josep Borrell compte visiter, lors de sa visite, la zone critique qui jouxte les territoires tenus par les séparatistes prorusses. Il ira ensuite à Kiev pour rencontrer d’autres responsables ukrainiens et, selon ses équipes, « souligner le soutien ferme de l’UE à la souveraineté et à l’intégrité territoriale de l’Ukraine à un moment où le pays est confronté au renforcement militaire et aux actions hybrides de la Russie ».
Sanctions
Depuis plusieurs semaines, les Occidentaux s’inquiètent sérieusement du déploiement de plus de 100.000 soldats russes à la frontière orientale de l’Ukraine et redoutent une nouvelle agression . En décembre dernier, les Vingt-Sept ont menacé Moscou de lourdes sanctions économiques si jamais il passait à l’acte. « Mais le Russes s’y sont préparés, ils ne craignent pas vraiment les armes économiques », estime Gustav Gressel, chercheur de l’ECFR. Le secrétaire général de l’Otan, Jens Stoltenberg, a prévu d’organiser le 12 janvier une réunion spéciale des pays alliés avec des responsables russes dans le but d’éviter un conflit ouvert.
Test de crédibilité
L’enjeu est très élevé. Selon Cyrille Bret, de l’Institut Jacques-Delors, « l’Ukraine à bien des égards est le laboratoire de l’action extérieure de l’UE, un vrai test de sa crédibilité ». Le chercheur reconnaît des mérites à l’Union, qui « affiche depuis l’annexion de la Crimée en 2014 une position forte et constante à l’égard de la région, confirmée régulièrement par le renforcement ou l’extension des sanctions infligées à certains citoyens russes ou ukrainiens ». D’après lui, « qu’Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel et Ursula von der Leyen aient réussi à maintenir les Vingt-Sept soudés autour de l’instrument des sanctions est déjà une énorme réussite. A cela s’ajoute un soutien budgétaire de l’UE, certes conditionné, à Kiev ». Reste que, bien évidemment, « cela ne forme pas une stratégie complète, puisqu’il manque un volet militaire que les Etats-Unis, eux, pourraient actionner ».
PM’s hogwash arguments against free rapid tests range from hypocritical to obscene
Wed 5 Jan 2022 05.26 GMT
‘At every stage of the pandemic, prime minister Scott Morrison has had to be dragged into action.’ Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
Scott Morrison’s bloody-minded refusal to fund rapid Covid-19 tests is misguided, expensive and dangerous. It is just one more example of the Liberal leader putting his own crude political interests ahead of public safety.
There are no silver bullets to end a pandemic. The public understand that. Vaccines are an important weapon. But only because they let us move from the blunt instrument of citywide lockdowns to a combination of other, more targeted and inter-locking public health measures.
This includes an effective regime of testing, tracing, isolation and quarantine. All these elements must work together.
Morrison’s dereliction of leadership responsibility for Australia’s testing regime, with queues snaking through city streets and rapid antigen tests being hawked online at extortionate prices, is one more addition to the many errors that have come before it.
At every stage of the pandemic, Morrison has had to be dragged into half-hearted action – with catastrophic consequences.
Morrison has been obsessed with picking political fights instead of his government’s core responsibilities like quarantine and aged care. Almost 1,000 Australians have now died in commonwealth-regulated aged care homes that were meant to keep them safe.
In this pivotal stage of the pandemic, it is in everyone’s interest to ensure every Australian, regardless of their income, has access to free at-home rapid antigen test kits. This is because every time a positive case is identified, it provides the chance to staunch a chain of infection and keep bending the curve so that our hospitals aren’t overrun.
Morrison’s myriad arguments against free rapid tests range from the hypocritical to the obscene.
First, Morrison insists the Treasury cannot afford it. This is patently ridiculous. Let’s not forget how Morrison wasted an eye-watering $40bn in JobKeeper payments to companies that didn’t need it – enough to buy every Australian household a dozen tests every month into 2024!
Morrison’s position on rapid tests is ultimately a false economy because mass-testing saves money in the long run. Public hospitals can easily spend more than $100,000 invasively ventilating an intensive care patient, or the chain of infection can be detected and halted weeks earlier using a cheap rapid test.
Second, Morrison points to conventional PCR laboratory tests as fully subsidised alternative. Apart from the mammoth queues to access a PCR test, these tests are much more expensive to taxpayers. For every PCR test conducted by a private laboratory, Medicare is charged $85; by comparison, rapid tests generally cost about $10 (even less when the government is buying millions of units in bulk). Put another way, for every rapid test that displaces a PCR test, taxpayers would save at least $70.
Third, Morrison draws a distinction between medicine, which he says should be funded, and tests, which he says shouldn’t. This is hogwash.
Since 1991, successive federal governments have funded free breast and cervical cancer screenings. John Howard expanded on these programs by including at-home bowel cancer tests. The fact that Morrison’s own government is conducting a feasibility study on free lung cancer screenings suggests he has no objection.
Australia’s world-leading response to HIV/Aids also hinged on providing vulnerable groups with free testing, treatment, condoms and clean needles.
Fourth, the government warns it cannot possibly meet Australians’ insatiable appetite for free tests – a statement that is grounded in a deeply elitist perspective on public health behaviours by lower income Australians.
Morrison might find this hard to imagine, but not every household has an extra $25 saved for a rapid test when they need it. This is a recipe for massive undetected spread among those Australians least able to pay.
Finally, Morrison says he won’t “undercut” businesses trying to make a buck out of these tests. This is a total abrogation of responsibility, leaving public health at the mercy of price-gouging companies who – unlike Morrison – listened to experts’ warnings of a looming spike in demand.
The fundamental principle of Medicare is that Australians deserve access to healthcare based on their needs, not their ability to fulfil the needs of the market.
If Morrison wants to ensure Australians can find rapid tests at their local shops, that’s good; he should involve those businesses in delivering publicly funded testing kits. But since Morrison’s stated motivation is to avoid “undercutting” their profits, it seems he’s forgotten who he works for.
One of the few things that unites most Australians is our revulsion at the hideous inequities of the American health system; Morrison’s apparent fondness for mingling business with healthcare suggests he doesn’t share that view.
Why then has Morrison taken this hypocritical and unsustainable position? I suspect three reasons.
Morrison may be trying to ease fears ahead of the election. Australians are watching rising case numbers with trepidation and soaring positive test rates – now more than 20% in most states – suggest there are many more cases lurking beneath the surface.
If Morrison cannot reduce the numbers in reality, he can reduce the numbers that are announced in the media each day. As Donald Trump once claimed, “if you don’t test, you won’t have any cases”.
Morrison also knows voters have now seen through the myth of Liberals being superior economic managers. Morrison is now the biggest-spending postwar prime minister with record debt and record deficit.
National debt is set to reach $1.3tn – more than seven-times the Labor government’s supposed “debt bomb” of $189bn in 2013 – equivalent to 55% of GDP, compared with 12% when we left office. Morrison’s performative austerity on rapid tests is a feeble attempt to regain some fiscal credibility.
Finally, Morrison now stakes this public position on a thread-bare ideology of “personal responsibility”. He’s borrowed this from his British counterpart, Boris Johnson, who thought he could politically skate through the latest UK debacle. But it’s also political code language for a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest contest in which the weak, the poor and the vulnerable are cast aside.
Perhaps that’s what Morrison really meant when he said of rapid tests, “someone’s always going to pay for it, and it’s going to be you”. Once we had Medicare. Now we have MorrisonCare.
Flags waving in Shanghai, November 2021 Aly Song / Reuters
“Time and momentum are on our side,” declared Chinese President Xi Jinping in January. But developments this year have not borne out Xi’s confidence about China’s inexorable rise. A number of structural weaknesses have been dragging down China’s prospects: a rapidly aging population, climate change vulnerability, a heavy debt load, and an increasingly inward-looking political system. The United States’ power, by contrast, has grown by a more substantial margin in the past year than that of any other Indo-Pacific country.
In 2021, according to the Lowy Institute’s Asia Power Index—a data-driven annual assessment that measures national resources and international influence to rank the relative power of the states in the Indo-Pacific—Beijing lost ground in half of the index’s measures of power, including diplomatic influence, cultural influence, economic capability, and future resources. In the same period, Washington registered its first annual gain in comprehensive power since the launch of the index in 2018.
The United States exerts greater, more multidimensional power—from military capabilities and defense networks to diplomatic and cultural influence—than any other country in the world. Just as significant, the United States has this year outranked China in the index’s measure of future resources, a combined assessment of the projected distribution of economic and military capabilities and demographic strength in the future. Whether the United States remains the top power in the Indo-Pacific for decades to come depends on how it plays its cards. Yet it is already clear that China will never be as dominant as the United States once was. A bipolar future beckons.
INDO-PACIFIC POWER BEGINS AT HOME
Much of the improvement in the United States’ performance in 2021 is the result of domestic renewal and successful coalition building. President Joe Biden has stressed that foreign policy success starts at home. The new administration has made significant progress on dealing with COVID-19, investing in infrastructure, and boosting the U.S. economy—the only major global economy now predicted to be larger in 2030 than was forecast prior to the pandemic.
The faster-than-expected U.S. economic recovery has coincided with growing headwinds in China. China’s economic growth is slowing, from eight percent annually a decade ago to a “new normal” of just over four percent annually predicted by the end of this decade. Even at that rate, China’s GDP at market exchange rates will still overtake that of the United States. But there are inherent limits on the speed at which China can continue to grow beyond 2030. Its workforce is projected to contract by almost 20 percent from current levels by midcentury, and there are few policy levers to turn around the decline in China’s working-age population. Productivity growth is slowing, and China’s investment-heavy approach for driving the economy will produce diminishing returns over time. What is more, by some estimates, Beijing spends more on projecting power inward, on domestic security, than outward, on military expenditure.
But domestic strength is only half the story. Just as important as what a superpower has is what it does with what it has. Washington has redoubled its emphasis on allies and partners as a force multiplier for U.S. power. The Biden administration has strengthened long-standing bilateral alliances, such as those with Japan and South Korea, and refreshed defense ties with the Philippines. New multilateral partnerships such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (with Australia, India, and Japan) and AUKUS (with Australia and the United Kingdom) offer Washington its best hope of upholding a military balance in its favor despite the declining margin of U.S. military superiority in the region.
The U.S. has the only major global economy predicted to be larger in 2030 than it was before the pandemic.
China may be building the world’s largest navy at a fearsome clip and investing in signature military capabilities, including an expanded nuclear deterrent. It has intimidated Taiwan, jostled with India, and pressed its claims aggressively in the East China and South China Seas. But rather than enhancing Beijing’s influence, such behavior undermines its ability to replace Washington as the regional security guarantor.
Washington has also seized the diplomatic initiative on issues from COVID-19 vaccines to development and infrastructure finance and climate action. By October 2021, the United States had donated and delivered more than 90 million vaccine doses to the Indo-Pacific region—twice as many as China, the next-largest donor in aggregate terms—and had been more generous on a per capita basis than any other donor in the Indo-Pacific. The net result has improved the United States’ diplomatic standing markedly. Biden is judged by regional experts to be the most effective Indo-Pacific leader, up ten places from President Donald Trump’s ranking in 2020.
Biden’s reputation was not significantly diminished by the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in August 2021 nor by France’s anger at the AUKUS announcement. In fact, Washington’s push to end the forever war in Afghanistan and bolster Australia’s sovereign capabilities were taken as tangible signs in many Asian capitals that the United States is focusing on this region and betting on its allies.
ASIA IS NOT WAITING
If there is one factor that threatens the United States’ strong position it is the decline in its regional economic influence. Here, U.S. policymakers should be alarmed. The rate of deterioration points to the risk of growing American irrelevance in the political economy of Asia.
Beijing’s economic power in the region is built on a narrow but deep foundation. China is virtually on par with the United States in terms of overall economic capacity but is vastly ahead in terms of regional economic relationships. China’s ability to connect with and influence the choices of other countries in Asia through economic interdependencies underlies this power, just as U.S. defense partnerships are the mainstay of U.S. military power. Trade flows between China and the rest of Asia are now three times the size of those between the United States and the region. China has also become the primary foreign investor in as many countries in the Indo-Pacific as the United States and Japan, the next-largest investor, combined.
China is vastly ahead of the U.S. in regional economic relationships.
The disparity in regional economic relationships has been a chronic weakness for the United States for many years. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), signed between 12 Pacific countries in 2016, was a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s strategic pivot to Asia and was meant to redress this weakness, countering the growing influence of China’s state-capitalist model in the region. But the United States withdrew in 2018, and without Washington anchoring the successor agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the grouping risks underachieving on the original goal of strengthening and deepening the “rules of the road” of the regional trading system. Yet there seems to be little hope of a president from either party joining the CPTPP or a similar agreement anytime soon. The anti-trade consensus in U.S. politics is preventing the formation of an effective multilateral hedge against China’s economic power. It remains to be seen whether the Biden administration’s forthcoming “economic framework for the Indo-Pacific” can overcome domestic U.S. opposition to free trade and offer the region anything of substance.
In the meantime, Asia is not waiting. Alternative models for a rules-based regional trade environment are well underway. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, for instance, led by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, will enter into force next month. The RCEP, unlike the CPTPP, has few commitments on labor, the environment, intellectual property, and state-owned enterprises. But it will result in more trade, investment, and supply chain integration for its 15 Asian partners—first among them, China.
The limitations on U.S. economic leadership in the Indo-Pacific point to the deeper problem: just as the United States’ resurgence in the past year stems from events at home, so do the biggest threats to the sustainability of this resurgence. The U.S. position will be threatened without a new commitment to economic engagement with the region, which in turn depends on American domestic dynamics. The other big danger for the United States is the polarization of its domestic politics and the threat this poses to the stability of the United States’ democratic institutions—and ultimately, its reliability as an ally and partner. It may be that the biggest risk to U.S. power in Asia lies not in Beijing but in Washington.
MICHAEL FULLILOVE is Executive Director of the Lowy Institute in Sydney, Australia.
HERVÉ LEMAHIEU is Director of Research at the Lowy Institute.
Digitalization could open a new era of growth for Korea. Previous expansion waves, based on traditional industries, have fostered export-led growth and placed Korea among the world’s top ten economies. However, divides between industry and services, large and small firms, and regular and non-regular workers have widened. The economy was losing steam even before the COVID-19 crisis, as the working-age population started to decline, and productivity growth slowed. Digitalization offers huge opportunities to raise productivity economy-wide and to tackle inequality, but optimizing it for all requires appropriate policies, notably to enhance skills, adapt regulations, and create networks for technology diffusion and innovation.
Big government, high taxes, massive debt, political polarization and social crises have become the norm throughout Western Europe and North America. But it is high time for leaders and citizens to take a look at the lessons history has to offer. Only then could the region avoid going down the same path as Rome and other fallen empires
Western governments appear to have thrown caution to the wind. Higher taxes are financing massive spending campaigns that have no clear implementation strategy (source: GIS)
Both the Biden administration and the European Union have announced unprecedented spending programs, $1.9 trillion and 1.8 trillion euros respectively, to fight Covid-19 and kickstart the green economy. There is no clear concept on how these funds will be spent or financed. But this kind of spending could serve as a pretext for a sharp tax increase in Washington. It appears that on both sides of the Atlantic, governments see the pandemic and the green economy as ideal excuses to keep overspending and increasing the role of the state and the administration.
This is alarming, given what took place in past societies and states that resorted to overspending and degrading the worth of their currency.
In ancient Rome, during the late years of the empire, internal turmoil had disturbed trade flows and the government had become bloated and inefficient. Rulers had to find ways to appease rising discontent. So they tried to buy off the population with gifts. To find the necessary funds, they increased taxes, implemented aggressive tax controls and began debasing silver coins by adding copper (a method strikingly reminiscent of today’s quantitative easing).
« So-called liberal democracies have become crippled by huge debts »
With these new measures came a tangle of laws that opened the door to corruption. The people of Rome began demanding panem et circenses as their due. The regime had to feed and entertain the population to survive, to the detriment of a sustainable common good. These welfare handouts from the state created rivalry between different social groups who felt they were disadvantaged compared to others, further poisoning the political situation. As a result, the formidable Roman Empire, once an efficient and well-functioning system, decayed and collapsed. Still, the principle of redistribution by taxing the rich to feed the poor remained popular. But this created the wrong incentives, punishing the hardworking on one side and encouraging idleness on the other.
Likewise, Spain was once the dominating power in Europe. In the 16th century, its European territories included not only the Iberian peninsula, but also large parts of Italy and the Netherlands. Its overseas lands stretched from the southern tip of Tierra del Fuego up to modern-day Colorado and California in the Americas, and also included the Philippines in Asia and territories in Africa. But the Spanish state expanded so much that it required higher taxes, which in turn led to inflation. The defeat of the Armada around the British Isles was not the cause of this decline, but a symptom.
There are several such instances in history, as the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century and the ebb of British power in the late 19th and 20th centuries. And we could soon witness yet another example.
The fall of Western democracy
In the last 20 years, Western democracies have entered a similar phase of decay. So-called liberal democracies have become crippled by huge debts. Tax systems have become byzantine, opaque and contradictory, allowing arbitrary decision-making. Tax collection is increasingly aggressive. The right to personal privacy is undermined under the pretext of tax justice. The productive spheres of the economy decline while the administration and auditing sectors grow.
Under the pretext of political correctness, public debate is being narrowly restricted. Established politicians and NGOs, for the sake of redressing inequalities – some of which are inevitable – have created new forms of discrimination. It has become customary to ban words, rename streets, remove monuments, curb traditions and marginalize the role of the family, all for fear of offending. This results in heightened polarization, making citizens more vulnerable to propaganda and manipulation.
« Lately, the spending spree to fight Covid-19 and climate change has gone into overdrive »
More and more financial information on private persons is being exchanged between authorities under the pretext of tax collection and the fight against money laundering and terrorism. Sensitive data is shared with highly corrupt countries, including some that sponsor terrorism. It is necessary to fight financial crimes, but it is highly doubtful that cooperating with untrustworthy and subversive countries will serve this purpose.The best way to fight fraud would be to drastically simplify tax systems and limit the size of public administration. But there will always be those who answer that this is not realistic.
Accepting the end?
Lately, the spending spree to fight Covid-19 and climate change has gone into overdrive. All limitations on spending were removed. Quantitative easing, i.e. money printing, has reached unprecedented levels – much like when Romans mixed copper with silver to keep the people happy. And like in ancient Rome and other empires, the liabilities resulting from this strategy will burden future generations.
Fighting Covid-19 and environmental damage are worthy causes. But there is no transparent plan to use the money that is now earmarked for these purposes. The only certainty is that the influence of the state and the size of the administration will grow. The quest for sustainability needs to include not only ecological concerns, but also economic and social ones.
The United States is in a situation similar to that of Europe. In order to allow additional spending, Washington is now sharply raising taxes and, like European countries, has joined the OECD’s campaign for minimum tax rates worldwide. This would allow the creation of a global cartel that could impose excessive taxation at will. Within the G20, democratic countries are in agreement with authoritarian ones on this matter. Like in the Roman empire, the wrong incentives are applied and taxes are being used as a way to pursue equality. The real winner here is the privileged bureaucracy.
The control that parliaments exert over budgetary matters is being eroded even in liberal democracies. Most MPs are dependent on the state for employment, and loyally follow their party leaders who sit in government – a vicious circle.
Looking at history and the present fiasco, we can conclude that real democracies are in danger. They are threatened not by the so-called populist movements, but rather by overspending and the disproportionate power given to administrations.
« In a functioning state, taxes are never used as a political tool »
This all results in a switch from a decentralized democracy to a centralized technocratic bureaucracy. The benefits of digitization will be overshadowed by its misuse as a tool to control citizens.Liberal democracy is legitimized by individual freedom. And now the only way to restore it would be to radically reduce the size of the administration, simplify systems and return to a reasonable, pragmatic and equitable taxation by focusing on common sense and the long-term public good. In a functioning state, taxes are meant to cover the necessary expenses of the administration and are never used as a political tool.
If we believe that reducing the size of public administration – and therefore expenses – is impossible, then we also implicitly accept the end of true liberal democracies based on freedom and the rule of law.
Christiane Amanpour interviews Narendra Taneja for CNN.
In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Narendra Taneja, a spokesman for India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata party, said that responsibility for the devastating second wave of Covid-19 now sweeping the country belongs « first and foremost » to the government.
Recent US initiatives concerning new IMF special drawing rights, corporate taxation, and climate change highlight America’s renewed support for global cooperation. The big question now is whether multilateralism can work – and how China will respond to these proposals, given rising bilateral tensions.
WASHINGTON, DC – Three important recent initiatives from US President Joe Biden’s administration illustrate America’s reengagement with the world and support for inclusive global multilateralism. The big question now, with the United States again seeking to play an international leadership role, is whether such cooperation can work – and how China will react to the US proposals, given rising bilateral tensions.
The first major initiative was US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s call for a new $650 billion issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs, the International Monetary Fund’s reserve asset) – something that President Donald Trump’s administration had blocked.
Details of the plan, which has been endorsed by the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors and the International Monetary and Financial Committee, are still to be worked out. It would not only involve a record new $650 billion SDR issuance to countries in proportion to their IMF quotas. It also calls on countries not needing these SDRs to reallocate them voluntarily to countries in need. For example, the US has suggested lending some of them to the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust to boost the Fund’s concessional lending capacity.
This is a big deal in at least two ways. A new $650 billion allocation would more than double the existing stock of SDRs, boosting global liquidity and freeing up resources for much-needed investment. And it could lead to large support from advanced economies to developing countries.
While any SDR reallocation would be voluntary, countries could go beyond a piecemeal approach to develop a more coordinated mechanism. For example, the US proposal could be extended to routinize donor governments’ contributions to institutions such as multilateral development banks to finance concessional loans to developing economies. In addition, the plan could involve the establishment of a new special purpose vehicle to attract private-sector resources.
China supports the proposed new SDR allocation, but it remains to be seen whether it will agree with the US and other advanced economies on the implementation details and reallocate some of its own SDRs in a coordinated multilateral manner. It will also be interesting to see what role the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank may play in such a scheme.
A second major US proposal would allow countries to tax the largest and most profitable multinational corporations (many of which are American) based on their sales in each country, regardless of physical presence, and would set a global minimum corporate-tax rate of 21%. The Financial Times reported on April 8 that the US Treasury floated the idea with the 135 countries involved in OECD/G20 discussions on so-called base erosion and profit shifting.
The proposed regulations would be binding for large companies in all sectors, depending on their level of revenue and profit margins. Reaching a global agreement will be difficult, but it would allow Biden to raise US corporate tax rates to pay for planned infrastructure investments without being undercut internationally and end the race to the bottom that has characterized corporate taxation for decades. The OECD framework provides another opportunity for US-China multilateral cooperation on one of the most important and sensitive global economic policy issues.
Lastly, Biden has invited 40 world leaders to a virtual climate summit on April 22-23, which will be streamed live to the public. The attendees include the leaders of 17 major greenhouse-gas (GHG) emitters, as well as those from other countries that are “demonstrating strong climate leadership” and innovative approaches or are especially vulnerable to climate change. A small number of business and civil-society leaders will also participate.
The Biden administration endorses the goals of achieving global net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 and limiting global warming close to 1.5 degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels, while emphasizing the need for more ambitious emission-reduction targets by 2030 than what countries pledged under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Most advanced economies, now including the US, are preparing strategies aimed at meeting global climate goals, although Biden’s ambitious plans will face stiff Republican opposition.
But the world will not achieve net-zero emissions, or close to it, by 2050 without China and the emerging economies as a whole immediately embarking on similar trajectories. They currently account for almost two-thirds of global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, with China alone responsible for almost 30%. Last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged that China would become carbon neutral before 2060, but did not outline a concrete strategy for achieving that goal. Most analysts agree that the country’s current policies and plans (especially regarding coal production and expansion of its oil and gas pipeline network) are inconsistent with this target.
Biden has invited Xi to the upcoming summit. US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, who has said he is “hopeful [but] not confident” of Chinese cooperation in tackling climate change, recently visited China in an attempt to enlist the country’s support for a successful April summit. Both countries issued a joint statement that, while positive in tone, is short on detailed commitments.
Youssef Amrani, ambassadeur du Maroc en Afrique du Sud
L’ émergence du continent africain dans le contexte de la crise sanitaire mondiale liée à la pandémie de Covid-19 exige une Union africaine plus inclusive et plus organisée, estime Youssef Amrani, ambassadeur du Maroc en Afrique du Sud, pour qui les idéologies révolues doivent laisser place au pragmatisme en faisant prévaloir le droit et l’action sur toute autre considération politicienne.
Dans une tribune publiée par le magazine Jeune Afrique, le diplomate marocain questionne les enjeux autour des systèmes de santé sur le territoire africain et suggère des actions mieux coordonnées entre les différentes chancelleries du monde afin de mieux contrer les effets de la crise sanitaire. Selon Youssef Amrani, la Covid-19 a mis à nu des manquements institutionnels d’une gouvernance multilatérale alourdie par des redondances bureaucratiques et des défaillances opérationnelles. Dès lors, il apparaît clairement qu’une refonte est nécessaire, en vue d’un renforcement des mécanismes et des procédés des institutions internationales, affirme-t-il, plaidant pour « inscrire l’action diplomatique dans le cadre d’un multilatéralisme de complémentarité qui se fonde sur un socle commun de valeurs, de visions et de stratégies ».
Aux yeux de l’ambassadeur du Maroc, la gouvernance mondiale doit gagner en flexibilité sans perdre en crédibilité: « Il ne s’agit pas d’imposer la volonté du plus fort au plus faible, mais de trouver les consensus d’une cohérence globale où chaque partie assumerait ses obligations ». Il a souligné, à cet égard, que les rapports de force doivent laisser place au « rapport d’interdépendance », car « l’unilatéralisme n’a aucune cohérence dans un monde d’intervulnérabilité ». Dans ce contexte-là, souligne Youssef Amrani, « tout l’enjeu pour la diplomatie africaine sera d’outiller ses mécanismes de déploiement à l’international pour porter un même message et poursuivre une même ambition ». Pour cela, « l’Union africaine de demain doit être plus inclusive, plus cohérente et plus organisée », et sa diplomatie plus forte et plus compétente. Pour lui, la diplomatie de demain ne s’exercera pas uniquement dans les couloirs des ministères des Affaires étrangères, mais également dans ceux des grandes multinationales, des laboratoires, des think tank sans oublier les plateaux de télévision et les universités. Et « si le diplomate déserte ces couloirs, il déserte le terrain et l’objet même de son action », prévient-il, assurant que « face à un spectre élargi d’acteurs de la société internationale, le diplomate s’impose comme un pivot qui transmet l’information et négocie la décision ».
Alors que l’innovation deviendra un outil et une finalité dans les jeux géopolitiques et géostratégiques, le diplomate doit gagner en expertise et en réactivité pour évoluer dans un environnement qu’il doit être en mesure de transformer au gré des exigences du moment, préconise-t-il. « La capacité à s’appuyer efficacement sur les réseaux sociaux et les nouvelles technologies de communication constituera les attributs obligatoires des futurs diplomates », affirme Youssef Amrani, soulignant que la dématérialisation et la digitalisation progressives du travail du diplomate sont inéluctables, à tel point qu’on observe aujourd’hui l’émergence d’une forme de diplomatie virtuelle. Et de souligner, dans ce contexte, que « l’importance du ‘soft power’ dans la diplomatie augmentera, particulièrement dans ses déclinaisons scientifique et technologique. L’innovation deviendra un outil et une finalité dans les jeux géopolitiques et géostratégiques. Le diplomate devra élargir le spectre de ses interlocuteurs en engageant de façon plus efficiente la communauté scientifique, les multinationales, la société civile et les ONG qui sont, désormais, des acteurs incontournables et souvent déterminants dans les relations internationales ».
Dans cette tribune, l’ambassadeur du Maroc a également plaidé pour une approche solidaire et responsable, comme celle prônée par le Maroc. « A l’échelle africaine, il nous appartient de toujours regarder vers l’avenir de cette émergence continentale, qui fédère les identités et mobilise les forces d’une nation africaine aux forces vives inégalées », affirme-t-il, soulignant que » le leadership de S.M le Roi Mohammed VI a fait de l’avènement africain une perspective non seulement voulue mais tracée à la faveur d’une vision globale, d’une action inclusive et d’une approche solidaire et responsable ». « En interne comme à l’international, la vision de S.M le Roi Mohammed VI est celle qui érige la dimension humaine au cœur des priorités, en conditionnant toutes les perspectives de développement d’abord et avant tout au bien-être, à la santé et à la sécurité du citoyen africain », note Youssef Amrani. D’ailleurs, a-t-il dit, « la décision historique de généraliser la couverture sociale, pour tous les Marocains, préside en réalité de cette même culture d’altruisme, de cette même démarche de responsabilité et de cette même conviction humaniste ».
La Chine n’est pas une puissance expansionniste et la volonté de Washington de contenir la Chine est une erreur stratégique, a estimé l’universitaire singapourien Kishore Mahbubani.
Lors d’un entretien avec le quotidien français Le Figaro publié début avril, M. Mahbubani, chercheur émérite à l’Institut de recherche sur l’Asie de l’Université nationale de Singapour, a déclaré que la volonté de contenir la Chine était une erreur stratégique.
Les Etats-Unis « ont lancé une compétition géopolitique contre la Chine sans élaborer au préalable une stratégie cohérente », a constaté l’universitaire.
« Les Chinois sont très prudents et pragmatiques, et très stratégiques dans leur pensée », a-t-il noté, ajoutant que « les Américains se mettent en péril en partant du principe qu’il leur est impossible de perdre puisqu’ils ont gagné toutes les compétitions depuis 130 ans ».
Ce diplomate chevronné et écrivain a estimé que « nous assistons à une compétition géopolitique majeure, pas une Guerre froide ».
Il a rappelé que la Chine était l’un des premiers partenaires commerciaux de l’Amérique. « Et en même temps la Chine est plus intégrée avec le reste du monde que les Etats-Unis », a-t-il ajouté.
« Il s’agit d’une compétition géopolitique classique qui se produit lorsque la première puissance mondiale prend peur et tente de contenir la puissance émergente. Cela se produit depuis 2.500 ans, depuis l’époque d’Athènes et Sparte », a-t-il observé. « Cela n’a rien à voir avec le communisme ».
Aux yeux de M. Mahbubani, la Chine deviendra de plus en plus sûre d’elle-même à mesure qu’elle deviendra plus puissante. Mais « elle n’est pas expansionniste », a-t-il souligné.
« Lorsque les Etats-Unis sont devenus une grande puissance, dans les années 1890 – la situation équivalente de la Chine aujourd’hui -, la première chose qu’ils ont faite a été de déclarer la guerre à d’autres pays et de saisir des territoires comme les Philippines à l’Espagne », a-t-il remarqué.
« Si Teddy Roosevelt (président américain 1901-1909) était le dirigeant de la Chine aujourd’hui, il prendrait tous les îlots contrôlés par le Vietnam, les Philippines, la Malaisie et Brunei », a supposé l’universitaire.
« La Chine possède la puissance militaire pour le faire. Mais elle ne l’a pas fait. Elle revendique des territoires qui, historiquement, ont été sous son contrôle », a-t-il conclu.
Le Maroc reste un «modèle» en matière de tolérance et de dialogue interreligieux, a affirmé le haut-représentant de l’Alliance des civilisations des Nations unies, Miguel Angel Moratinos, au cours d’un webinaire organisé, jeudi, par le Centre marocain pour la tolérance et le dialogue interreligieux, à l’occasion du 62e anniversaire de la disparition de Feu S.M. Mohammed V.
M. Moratinos a mis en avant l’exemplarité du Royaume en matière de préservation des droits des croyants, de coexistence et de pluralité, rappelant la grande symbolique de la visite du Pape François au Maroc, il y a deux ans, et sa rencontre avec S.M. le Roi Mohammed VI, Amir Al Mouminine.
«Cette visite démontre la ferme volonté du vivre-ensemble et de cohabitation entre les religions abrahamiques», a insisté l’ancien chef de la diplomatie espagnole, relevant que les religions n’existent pas uniquement pour la tolérance, mais aussi pour prôner le dialogue et l’action commune.
M. Moratinos a aussi souligné le rôle d’avant-garde qu’accomplit S.M. le Roi, Amir Al Mouminine, dans la consécration du respect des religions et le libre exercice du culte, dans le cadre des traditions marocaines ancestrales. Introduisant cette rencontre, le président du Centre, Mohamed Aabidou, a rappelé l’importance qu’accordait feu S.M. Mohammed V aux valeurs de cohabitation et de tolérance, assurant que «le défunt souverain était un roi exceptionnel non seulement dans le monde arabe, mais aussi au niveau islamique dans ce domaine». «Nous savons tous comment le regretté Souverain a sauvé la vie de milliers de juifs lors de la Seconde Guerre mondiale», a-t-il commenté, notant que le Maroc est le seul pays arabe à intégrer la culture juive dans le cursus scolaire.
L’ancien ministre tunisien des Affaires étrangères, Mohamed Khalil, a salué les actions et les initiatives entreprises par feu S.M. Mohammed V, tout au long de sa vie, afin de donner sens à la communion et à l’altérité entre les adeptes des différentes religions. «Face à la conjoncture actuelle marquée par la division et les guerres, la voix du Maroc émerge, à nouveau, pour plaider le dialogue interreligieux et bâtir une nouvelle ère», soutient le diplomate tunisien. En initiant ce débat de haut niveau, le Centre marocain pour la tolérance et le dialogue interreligieux voulait, ainsi, rendre hommage au père de la Nation, Feu S.M. Mohammed V, héros de la lutte anticoloniale qui a posé les jalons du Maroc indépendant.
Entre élargir ses relations avec Moscou et Pékin ou, au contraire, renforcer sa dépendance à l’égard de Washington, l’Allemagne est confrontée à un dilemme déterminant pour l’avenir de l’Europe et du système international, analyse, dans une tribune au « Monde », le président de l’Institut français des relations internationales.
Les seize années du règne d’Angela Merkel ont été marquées par une transformation du monde à laquelle la chancelière allemande s’est adaptée au jour le jour, mettant en œuvre son exceptionnel talent pour recoller les morceaux après chacune des crises qui ont déferlé depuis son accession au pouvoir. Ce fut le cas de la crise financière des années 2010 consécutive à la débâcle des subprimes aux Etats-Unis, avec le sauvetage de la zone euro. Ce fut le cas, quoique d’une manière plus discutable (montée de l’AfD), avec la crise migratoire consécutive à la débâcle du « printemps arabe ». Ce fut encore le cas avec le Brexit et même avec la pandémie de Covid-19.
Autant de circonstances mettant à l’épreuve l’Union européenne, qui, à chaque fois, est sortie plutôt renforcée – du moins si l’on s’en tient à une vision court-termiste. En même temps, la chancelière a fait le dos rond face aux coups de boutoir de Donald Trump, restant fidèle à sa manière d’être : attendre, voir et faire les bons gestes le plus tard possible.
A-t-elle compris que l’élection de Trump en 2016 ne fut pas un accident de parcours mais le signe le plus visible à la fois d’une évolution profonde de la société américaine et celui d’un basculement du monde au profit de l’Asie, d’abord de la Chine ? Croit-elle qu’avec l’élection de Joe Biden on en reviendra au rassurant protectorat américain d’antan – au-delà de ses rites, comme la conférence annuelle de Munich sur la sécurité ? C’est maintenant aux candidats à sa succession que ces questions se posent et leurs réponses engageront, pour une large part, l’avenir de l’Europe et au-delà.
Redéfinir l’avenir de sa sécurité
Avec la crise financière de 2007-2008 et l’éclatement de la rivalité sino-américaine, le monde est véritablement entré dans le XXIe siècle. La doxa atlantiste du temps de la guerre froide est périmée, qu’on le veuille ou non. Les rapports de puissance de la géopolitique classique n’ont rien perdu de leur pertinence, mais la géoéconomie en a accru considérablement la complexité. Le combat contre le réchauffement climatique bouleverse les politiques énergétiques et soulève de nombreux défis technologiques. Les grandes puissances jouent de plus en plus avec l’arme des sanctions.
La tendance manifeste à la démondialisation est moins une réduction radicale de l’interdépendance qu’un combat sans merci en vue du contrôle de nœuds critiques liés à l’accès aux matières premières, aux produits stratégiques (comme les semi-conducteurs) et, plus généralement, aux chaînes d’approvisionnement.
Plus fondamentalement encore, la redistribution de la puissance politique et économique se décidera autour de la maîtrise de l’acquisition et de l’utilisation des données, à l’échelle planétaire. Chaque pays pèsera ce que vaudra son complexe militaro-numérico-industriel. Chaque pays, mais aussi l’Union européenne, si on la prend au sérieux en tant qu’unité politique en voie de construction.
Or, depuis la seconde guerre mondiale, l’Allemagne (comme, d’ailleurs, le Japon) a bâti sa puissance en bénéficiant à plein du protectorat américain pour sa sécurité et d’un commerce international dépolitisé qui a notamment fait la fortune de son économie en général et de son industrie automobile en particulier. Cette ère-là est terminée. C’est dire que le futur chancelier ne pourra pas éviter d’aborder comme un ensemble indissociable la question de la redéfinition de son modèle économique et celle de l’avenir de sa sécurité. Les mots font parfois peur. C’est le cas de l’expression « autonomie stratégique » pour l’Europe.
La dernière chancelière du XXe siècle
Mais, face à la volonté américaine de restructurer l’Alliance atlantique pour contrer la Chine, l’Allemagne devra faire de vrais choix. Nul ne peut indéfiniment se cacher derrière le paravent d’un vocabulaire désuet. Ces choix seront à la fois sécuritaires, économiques et technologiques. En théorie, l’Allemagne pourrait rêver de devenir une grande Suisse ou de briser le tabou du Sonderweg, en s’engageant dans une « voie particulière », qui la pousserait à élargir ses relations avec la Russie et la Chine, déjà bien avancées sur le plan proprement économique. Le gazoduc Nord Stream 2 en est le symbole pour la Russie et l’importance de ses exportations, notamment automobiles, pour la Chine.
Mais jusqu’où peut-elle aller seule dans cette voie ? A l’inverse, jusqu’où peut-elle accepter de renforcer encore sa dépendance vis-à-vis des Etats-Unis ? Jusqu’à quel point peut-elle éviter d’affronter directement la question de l’accroissement de ses capacités militaires et celle de la suspicion qu’un tel accroissement ne manquerait pas de susciter ? Jusqu’où peut-elle et veut-elle aller dans ce domaine, à l’intérieur du cadre européen ?
Les réponses à ces questions passeront nécessairement par des discussions approfondies entre l’Allemagne et ses partenaires européens, à commencer par la France, avec laquelle elle forme une communauté de destin. Le débat public jouera un rôle déterminant, car derrière tous ces sujets il y a tant de tabous. Après Helmut Kohl, qui marqua de son sceau les conditions de la réunification allemande, puis Gerhard Schröder, qui eut à en gérer le coût en évitant les dérapages, Angela Merkel hérita d’une Allemagne forte. Une Allemagne vouée à s’affirmer comme la première puissance d’une Union européenne métamorphosée par la fin de la guerre froide et plus atlantiste que jamais, en un temps où le monde pouvait encore être qualifié d’unipolaire.
Celui d’aujourd’hui est un océan d’incertitudes, mais une vérité se dégage : bien qu’ayant exercé son mandat entre 2005 et 2021, Angela Merkel restera comme la dernière chancelière allemande du XXe siècle. Le XXIe siècle politique a vraiment commencé et, parce que l’Allemagne est effectivement devenue la première puissance européenne, ses choix dans les années à venir seront déterminants pour l’avenir de l’Europe et, en ce sens, pour celui du système international dans son ensemble, à l’horizon des trente prochaines années.
Lire la tribune sur le site du Monde Cette tribune est une traduction de l’article paru dans la revue allemande Internationale Politik Quaterly, n°2, Printemps 2021, voir l’article en anglais ici
Les Cahiers du Cercle des Economistes – La France est-elle toujours dans la course technologique ?
Article de François Barrault, président Idate DigiWorld
Pendant des années les innovations technologiques ont été rythmées et cadrées par les fameuses ‘lois de Moore’ : à savoir, on double la puissance informatique des processeurs tous les 18 mois. Cette référence, admise par tous les professionnels, a ainsi cranté le développement des systèmes et leur financement tout en permettant de budgéter l’évolution du parc informatique d’ailleurs souvent orchestrée par les géants américains de l’époque au rythme de leurs annonces.
Mais les choses changent et s’accélèrent à une vitesse folle : on parle de facteur 10 000 voire d’un million pour les 8-10 prochaines années. Nous sommes à l’aube d’une révolution industrielle sans précédent qui va bouleverser le monde moderne déjà fortement ébranlé depuis plus d’un an maintenant par la Covid 19. La 5G en est un des piliers, mais pas le seul.
Tout d’abord, la nouvelle la Loi de Moore 2.0 va s’appliquer à l’ensemble de la chaine de création et de traitement des données : ‘sensors’, caméras, ‘Edge Computing’ ou informatique embarquée localement, stockage infini et gratuit et enfin processeurs quantiques. Bien sûr chaque maillon se verra enrichi par de l’IA – Intelligence Augmentée et non Artificielle – qui traitera un nombre croissant d’opérations localement sans avoir à faire appel à des ressources décentralisées : les chips seront de plus en plus miniaturisés avec de grandes capacités
de stockage et traitement et, enfin, une très faible consommation énergétique et une connectivité en continu entre eux (IOT, internet des objets) et avec le cloud.
Les objets de la vie courante, nos environnements personnels ou professionnels seront des machines à collecter des données, à les traiter, les comparer et a priori à nous fournir une meilleure qualité de vie, une sécurité renforcée et pourquoi pas une porte d’entrée au ‘bonheur numérique’ ? Les nouveaux processeurs quantiques développés notamment grâce au plan ‘Quantique’ du gouvernement français avec 1,8 milliards d’Euros investis, vont augmenter considérablement les vitesses de calculs dans un rapport jusqu’alors jamais égalé.
La deuxième révolution est portée par les données et leur traitement : ‘Data is the new Gold’ !. Le premier pilier technologique va créer des trillions de données tous les jours et pour qu’elles soient vivantes et exploitables, il faut les rendre pertinentes, intelligentes, corrélées et surtout prédictives. Cela vaut non seulement pour les comportements des consommateurs mais aussi par exemple pour la maintenance qui se
doit de ne plus être seulement curative mais aussi prédictive comme pour les centrales nucléaires ou les robots des marchés financiers.
Enfin, le troisième pilier, le lien essentiel entre la technologie et les données, la 5G dont les enchères de la première allocation de fréquences en 3,5 et 3,71 Ghz ont été attribuées aux 4 opérateurs français. Il était temps car la 5G est déjà opérationnelle dans 60 pays et territoires depuis 2018 ! Quel bonheur d’avoir vu s’allumer le petit icone ‘5G’ sur nos smartphones dernier cri.
Ce triptyque, technologique, données et 5G va transformer notre quotidien et la compétitivité des entreprises et l’IA au coeur de notre vie.
Les exemples sont nombreux ; l’un d’entre eux est particulièrement pertinent pour illustrer cette accélération : la voiture connectée ou bientôt autonome.
Les ‘sensors’ ou caméras embarquées pourront identifier instantanément les obstacles rencontrés (piétons, voitures, vélos..), iront chercher dans l’ordinateur embarqué (Edge Computing) les données manquantes (tracteurs, side-cars) et, si aucun élément n’est répertorié – un éléphant rose par exemple – chercheront dans le Cloud (grâce à la 5G) et ainsi contextualiseront, analyseront puis renverront à la voiture un ordre validé par tous les spécialistes ou leurs avatars (avocats, assureurs, vétérinaires, dresseur d’éléphant etc..). La voiture s’arrêtera ou contournera l’obstacle en fonction des milliards d’opérations effectuées et ce, en quelques millièmes de seconde.
C’est exactement ce qui se passe avec l’être humain : en 4 itérations notre oeil voit un éléphant rose (au lieu de 4000 pour la machine) analyse la situation et prend la bonne décision instantanée (reflexe) ou réfléchie si le temps le permet.
Sommes-nous égaux avec la machine ?… Pas vraiment ! Nous avons 5 sens, la machine 2, la captation visuelle des évènements se fait à 300 000 Km/s et auditive à 340 m/s mais une fois dans notre cerveau, la transmission ralentit à.. 100 m/s et nos capteurs transmettent à 60 m/s les informations ou les ordres physiques à nos muscles.
Certes nous avons 3 ‘sensors’ en plus (gout, odorat, toucher) mais dans ce cas de figure notre temps de réaction à l’évènement va de 50 ms à 300 ms (de l’activité neuronale visuelle à la réponse motrice). Ce qui explique le faux départ au 100 m qui est déclaré en dessous d’un temps de réaction de 100 ms. Pendant ce temps-là, l’information dans la voiture et dans le cloud se déplace à des vitesses allant jusqu’à 300 000 km/s.
Cette accélération technologique basée sur la vitesse et la puissance, souvent assimilée à tort à l’IA, est en fait un temps de traitement de l’information très accéléré qui vient concurrencer l’être humain dans des taches d’abord basiques puis très sophistiquées ou critiques au fur et à mesure du déploiement de ces technologies.
Or la 5 G est vitale avec son débit (X5) et son temps de réaction (latence) divisé par 100.
Le déploiement de la 5G sur notre territoire suscite beaucoup de questions et réactions anxiogènes.
On lui reproche des impacts environnementaux, sanitaires et comportementaux. Si on exclut la théorie conspirationniste qui accuse la 5G de diffuser le covid-19, trois thématiques sont au cœur des débats, en plus de celui de la souveraineté nationale et de la cyber-sécurité.
• Une exposition aux ondes électromagnétiques (comme avec la 3G ou 4G) plus importantes avec l’utilisation des bandes millimétriques et une multitude d’objets connectés
• Une consommation énergétique importante (objets, capacité de stockage et de transmission)
• L’obsolescence prématurée de milliards de terminaux 4G
Ces annonces perturbent fortement les citoyens et nos élus : il faut faire preuve de beaucoup de prudence et surtout de pédagogie plutôt que de se livrer à des joutes verbales stériles sur les plateaux TV : ‘tough with fact, nice with people’
Concernant l’aspect sanitaire et pendant les 3 prochaines années, les fréquences utilisées sont très proches des existantes (3G,4G, Wifi) voire au-delà (Wifi 2,4 Ghz, 5 Ghz) à la maison. Donc pas de panique. Il nous reste 5 ans pour étudier l’impact des très hautes fréquences déjà utilisées dans certains pays.
Sur le terrain très glissant de la consommation énergétique, de nombreux efforts ont été demandés aux constructeurs, équipementiers et operateurs pour la réduire de manière très significative (facteur 100 à débit égal). L’apport de l’Intelligence Augmentée (IA !) à chaque niveau de la chaine de valeur, la miniaturisation des éléments vont contribuer à ces économies vertigineuses. Les constructeurs de mobiles travaillent
aussi d’arrache-pied sur l’obsolescence prématurée et programmée des milliards de terminaux 4G et 3G notamment sur leur recyclage ou de leur mise à jour.
En 2020, la Commission Européenne a publié une boite à outils « cyber sécurité » : son objectif est de définir une approche européenne coordonnée, fondée sur un ensemble commun de mesures qui visent à atténuer les principaux risques en matière de cyber sécurité des réseaux 5G.
La cyber sécurité doit aussi être prévue dès la conception des systèmes, des objets connectés qui coexisteront par milliards et encadrée pour assurer la sécurité des réseaux. La France a répondu aux inquiétudes par une loi (« Loi Huawei ») qui prévoit que toute entreprise qui veut mettre en place un réseau 5G devra obtenir une certification validée par l’ANSSI.
En parallèle de ces 3 révolutions technologiques concomitantes, phénomène unique depuis le début des technologies de l’information, s’accélère le cercle vertueux de l’innovation ou plus exactement du progrès. : la technologie change les usages qui changent les business models et les vecteurs d’investissement.
Le premier confinement a été d’une grande brutalité et vécu par beaucoup comme un traumatisme (on change d’état quasi instantanément). Avec le confinement forcé et grâce aux Zoom, Teams et autres outils collaboratifs, nous avons pu continuer à travailler, produire, échanger, vendre… et comme toujours, l’adaptabilité du genre humain a été remarquable. Si de nouveaux usages se sont installés très rapidement, de nouvelles questions ont émergé.
Le bureau, sanctuaire physique du travail (« je vais au bureau ! ») a été dématérialisé, les réunions « distancielles » sont devenues plus courtes, plus percutantes, les décisions plus rapides. Dès lors, dans l’après pandémie, pourquoi aller au bureau, qu’y faire ? Un grand patron du CAC 40 m’a confié que désormais les 6000 employés de leur siège à la
Défense qui arrivent dans une tranche de 45 mns, qui suivent les mêmes rituels (pauses cigarette, déjeuners…) et qui augmentent les transhumances pendulaires du matin, soir, weekends et vacances, tout cela était devenu absurde même si bien sûr demeure l’immense besoin de contacts et de liens physiques.
Tout un pan de l’économie s’est trouvé arrêté – les services divers à l’entreprise (cantines, nettoyages, transports…)- et en même temps, grâce à la technologie, on découvre une nouvelle forme de liberté où le bureau se déplace à la campagne, au domicile … De nouveaux concepts, comme les ’15 minutes cities’ émergent pour que les personnes puissent choisir entre leur maison, le ‘bureau’ et une structure hybride
près de chez eux (15 mns à pied ou à vélo) où se conjuguent convivialité et environnement de travail. Après quelques cafouillages, un nouvel ordre s’est établi. Ce nouvel ordre laissera des traces indélébiles dans nos modes de fonctionnement professionnels et privés.
Une réflexion s’impose donc sur l’organisation des grandes sociétés où le courant mondialiste a entrainé un découpage géographique/taylorien des activités en fonction des seuls critères de coût : production en Chine, centre d’appels en Inde, ingénierie en Europe..
Aujourd’hui s’ajoutent de nouveaux critères de choix, qu’ils soient écoresponsables, souverainistes ou encore cloisonnement et indépendance des sites de production. L’augmentation très significative des coûts des terres rares, chips, acier etc… va d’ailleurs accélérer la refonte du modèle : je produis où je consomme. Et en même temps, le nouvel ordre géopolitique mondial suppose que la communauté européenne se consolide afin de rester dans la compétition internationale.
Se pose aussi la question de l’organisation du travail : comment mettre en place des nouveaux modes d’organisation apprenantes, des nouveaux modèles de soutien et d’accompagnement managériaux à distance, quel rôle pour le management intermédiaire… ? Ce sujet prend d’autant plus d’acuité qu’il se conjugue avec l’irruption de la data, de l’IA, de la robotisation qui entraine une substitution des machines à l’homme pour les taches à faible valeur ajoutée ou encore dangereuses. La compétitivité économique repose sur la capacité des nations ou régions à embarquer les apports des nouvelles technologies pour bâtir une industrie 4.0 plus agile, plus fiable, plus productive. Dès lors la question de l’accompagnement du développement des compétences, de la formation aux métiers de demain est cruciale. L’Allemagne qui veut garder son industrie lourde compétitive et haut de gamme a investi massivement dans les outils 4.0 pour produire moins cher, avec la qualité que l’on connait tout en accompagnant et formant le personnel de son industrie.
Ce pivot ou le coût n’est plus le seul critère de choix est une chance pour l’Europe et en particulier la France pour nous permettre de ré-industrialiser intelligemment notre pays.
La fusée à 3 étages est partie et nous allons être les témoins vivants d’une révolution technologique et industrielle sans précédent où j’en suis sûr, l’homme trouvera sa place … ‘Stay tuned ‘ !!
Grâce à la vaccination massive et à la réouverture progressive du pays, les États-Unis voient le taux de chômage chuter de 6% et 900.000 emplois se créer en seulement un mois. Nicolas Barré fait le point sur une question d’actualité économique.
On surnomme cela le « boom du vaccin ». Aux Etats-Unis, l’emploi repart très fort et les effets de la crise du Covid seront bientôt effacés.
Le Wall Street Journal, la bible des affaires, note dans un éditorial que, le même jour, ont été annoncés un nombre record de créations d’emploi et la fin des restrictions de voyages pour tous les Américains vaccinés. Plus la campagne de vaccination avance, plus les Américains retrouvent une vie normale et l’économie se redresse. Les stigmates de la crise disparaissent. En un mois en mars, l’économie américaine a créé plus de 900.000 emplois et le taux de chômage est retombé à 6%.
En fait, le retour à la normale s’accélère.
Ça va très vite, oui. Nicolas Barré invite ceux que ça intéresse à aller faire un tour sur le site de l’université du Maryland qui a mis au point un « indice de la distanciation sociale » en compilant les données personnelles fournies par Google et par les téléphones portables. On s’aperçoit que l’on est revenu pratiquement aux mêmes comportements qu’avant la pandémie, les gens se déplacent, se croisent, bref l’économie s’est littéralement remise en mouvement comme avant.
Au fond, le meilleur plan de soutien de l’économie, c’est le vaccin.
C’est exactement ce que disent les opposants à Joe Biden qui pensent qu’en fait, ça ne sert plus à rien d’injecter des centaines de milliards d’argent public dans l’économie. Vous allez voir, ça va être LE débat politique des prochains mois entre ceux qui diront : laissez faire l’économie, regardez, vous voyez bien, ça repart tout seul dès qu’on réouvre tout. Et les chiffres de l’emploi leur donnent partiellement raison. Et en face les démocrates qui voudront dépenser encore plus d’argent public, ce qui veut dire aussi alourdir les taxes sur les entreprises. Si l’économie américaine continue d’accélérer, paradoxalement, ça ne va pas faire les affaires de Joe Biden. Il aura du mal à justifier de dépenser encore tant d’argent public alors que le chômage sera bientôt retombé à son niveau d’avant crise. Il risque de se retrouver politiquement en difficulté quand l’économie ira beaucoup mieux. L’histoire est ironique…
Pourquoi donc, en économie ou en sciences, nos plus grands talents partent-ils exercer ailleurs ? Notre chroniqueur nous livre quelques explications.
Àl’instar des milieux artistiques, le monde de la recherche est sans pitié, le classement y est permanent et l’élitisme, la culture commune. En France toutefois, si l’entrée dans la carrière est très sélective, car il n’y a, chaque année, qu’un ou deux postes dans une discipline donnée[1], la quête s’arrête là et la carrière devient du jour au lendemain toute tracée. Comme sous l’Ancien Régime, le jour où un chercheur du CNRS ou de l’Inserm est titularisé, il a acquis pour la vie un statut, une « charge ». Elle le protégera, mais ne lui donnera plus aucune stimulation financière ou symbolique […]
L’élection du 46e président des États-Unis a créé un immense appel d’air pour les migrants. Surtout pour ceux d’Amérique centrale fuyant la misère, les désastres naturels et la violence des gangs.
À la frontière entre le Mexique et les États-Unis, les trafiquants d’êtres humains se sont adaptés, avec le cynisme qui les caractérise, à la nouvelle donne administrative prévalant à Washington. Joe Biden a conservé la directive sanitaire – dite Title 42 – prise par son prédécesseur qui autorise les gardes-frontières américains à reconduire immédiatement les personnes ayant franchi illégalement la frontière. Mais il a fait une exception pour les mineurs non accompagnés. Alors, on a vu des trafiquants – filmés la nuit par une caméra de surveillance – jeter des enfants par-dessus un mur frontalier de 4,2 mètres de haut. Beaucoup se blessent en tombant, mais ils sont toujours, plus tard, soignés par les gardes-frontières.
L’élection de Joe Biden, candidat qui avait vertement critiqué l’inflexibilité de Trump en matière migratoire et dénigré son projet d’un mur courant tout le long de la frontière, a créé un immense appel d’air pour les migrants. Surtout pour ceux d’Amérique centrale fuyant […]
As Britain readies to host the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow in November this year, there is a concerted effort to push countries towards publicly endorsing and adopting ‘Net Zero’—a carbon neutral emission norm—as policy. This is a demand for an inflexible, near-impossible, time-bound agenda to achieve what is no doubt a noble goal. And, as is often the case with climate-related issues, the nobility of intent is at risk of being overwhelmed by sanctimonious hectoring that raises hackles instead of ensuring meaningful participation.
On 3rd March, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres took to Twitter to call on governments, private companies and local authorities to immediately initiate three measures to mitigate climate change: Cancel all coal projects in the pipeline; end coal plant financing and invest only in renewable energy; and, jumpstart a global effort to a ‘just transition’ from carbon to non-carbon energy sources.
On the face of it, this was an unexceptionable call from the high priest of the UN to the global laity to rise in support of an important cause. But if we were to scratch the surface of the Secretary-General’s words, we would see that his call was little more than virtue-signalling.
For, there is nothing ‘just’ about the transition that he has sought without delay. Implicit in his call is the immoral proposition to disregard poverty, despair and the yawning development deficit between nations as he places them all on the same plane. Inherent in this approach is the unedifying complicity of global institutions in foisting an arrangement founded in the belief that the poor in the developing world should underwrite the climate mitigation strategy of the developed world. The climate high priests need to realise that depriving the world’s poorest of their aspirations can never be ‘just’ climate action. It can be convenient and, hence, it has much appeal in many quarters.
The climate high priests need to realise that depriving the world’s poorest of their aspirations can never be ‘just’ climate action. It can be convenient and, hence, it has much appeal in many quarters
An Alternative Script
A waffle-free alternative script for those given to sermonising to the world would focus on three other aspects that may actually lead to faster transitions and more justice. First, an impassioned call to those who control capital—managers of pension, insurance and other funds—to ensure larger amounts of money leave the country of origin and flow to countries of deficit for building sustainable, climate resilient infrastructure of the future. The Climate Policy Initiative has calculated that less than a quarter of climate finance flows across national boundaries; in other words, the overwhelming majority of climate finance is raised for domestic projects. The states expected to disproportionately do more to battle climate change are located in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Yet, they are inadequately funded and financed and cost of capital in these places dampens the scope of action. It would be stressing the obvious to say that the frontline states cannot be expected to engage in this battle without adequate inflow of climate capital at the right price for climate action.
Second, the assessors of risk—the intractable credit rating agencies, the cash-rich central banks and the big boys of New York, London and Paris—who decide how much capital should flow in which direction, should be called upon to recalibrate their risk assessment mechanism. Let it be said, and said bluntly, that objective ‘climate risk’ outweighs subjective ‘political risk’ which prevents the flow of capital to key climate action geographies. Risk must be reassessed objectively. Till then, the highfalutin sermons of the Pontiffs of Climate would be mere lip service, which none among the Climate Laity would bother to take seriously.
Third, and, perhaps, the most ‘just’ proposition the Secretary-General could make, would be a moral directive to all Western nations to shut down coal plants and fossil fuel- based enterprises immediately and entirely abandon carbon-fuelled energy for any purpose. After all, green energy sources need room to grow and space to mature and the OECD nations must allow this at warp speed. It is farcical to deny coal plants to countries that are still struggling to claw their way up the development ladder and demand that they turn carbon neutral while thousands of units and homes belch and blow climate emissions every day in rich economies. What is good for the rich cannot be bad for the poor.
Any ‘Just Transition’ must involve evicting the squatters occupying carbon space to the detriment of others. Buying this space from the poorer is not ‘just’; it is another perverse business model based on extraction and mercantilism of centuries past
In the run-up to COP26 at Glasgow, we are witnessing a new passion play of countries making a dramatic show of embracing the idea of Net Zero economies in the coming decades. The script of this passion play draws on starkly evocative narratives that seek to catalyse action through theatrical terms such as ‘climate emergency’. From appropriating the voice of the powerless to acquire legitimacy and crafting compelling narratives through a new cohort of well-funded ambassadors to push the envelope on climate change policy approaches, we are seeing varied actors engaging with climate issues in different ways. These different efforts have a common design, the economic objective of socialising the cost of climate action and making the poor carry the can for the rich.
That said, some facts are irrefutable. The last decade has been the warmest in recorded human history and its effects are visible to all. In February this year, an iceberg larger than New York City broke off the frozen Antarctic and my just be a prelude to what lies ahead. Indeed, the possibility of the Arctic turning into a benign waterway in the near future can no longer be ruled out. It would require extraordinary un-intelligence to argue that global warming and its fallout can be mitigated by business-as-usual decision-making. But even as there is trans-world consensus on climate change and its impact, many would and must disagree on the proposed burden-sharing and distribution of responsibilities as we respond as a collective.
The India Imperative
India will be significantly affected by climate change in the coming decades. It is already feeling the heat and is combatting challenges from its mountains to its coasts due to shifting weather cycles and changing climate. It needs clearheaded policies, backed by political will, on this single most important issue that will impact its growth, its stability and the very integrity of its geography comprising a multitude of topographies.
This is happening at a moment when India is poised to exit the low-income orbit and take off on a trajectory towards becoming a middle-income country. Its journey from a US $3 trillion economy to a US $10 trillion economy coincides with ongoing climate action, polarising climate debate and climate-impacted economics. India can neither isolate itself from this reality, nor can it be reticent or timid in making its choices known to the world. India cannot be a receiver of decisions made elsewhere; it has to be on the high table, co-authoring decisions implicating its future.
For India, the moment offers three opportunities in these challenging times. First, India has to prepare itself through its policies, politics and internal rearrangements to seize and realise the single biggest global opportunity of leading a global effort to mitigate emissions of the future. The IEA, in its India Energy Outlook 2021 Report, estimates that India’s emissions could rise as much as 50 percent by 2040—the largest of any country, in which case India would trail behind only China in terms carbon dioxide emissions. This need not happen and is an opportunity for India and the World.
India must grab this chance to lower its future emissions through the right investments, technologies and global partnerships. The developed world, too, must make a matching response: Just like the Marshall Plan invested billions to rebuild post-War Europe with Germany at its heart, a new age Climate Marshall Plan must see India at its core. India must prepare and offer itself as the single biggest climate mitigation opportunity for the world and the most important green investment destination.
The developed world, too, must make a matching response: Just like the Marshall Plan invested billions to rebuild post-War Europe with Germany at its heart, a new age Climate Marshall Plan must see India at its core
Second, neither the world nor India should forget the dictum that on climate, India solves for the world. The solutions that India experiments with and implements successfully will be fit to be repurposed for other developing countries with similar geo-topographical conditions and economic sensitivities. Many of them are frontline countries in the climate battle.
India can and must become the hub of climate action for this decade and beyond, offering services, technology and infrastructure through climate supply chains that span the developing world. The International Solar Alliance is just a modest beginning. The future holds multiple opportunities. The country must lead the charge through building financial institutions that will support and sustain green transitions and helping create green workforces fit for purpose for the coming decades, amongst others.
Third, as India celebrates 75 years of its independence in 2022 and leads the G20 in 2023, it has the chance to make its most significant identity shift. India moved from being a British colonial state to a free nation in 1947, and then moved from being perceived as a land of snake-charmers to becoming an internationally acknowledged technology hub at the turn of the century. This decade offers the chance for it to emerge first as aUS $5 trillion and then as aUS $10 trillion economy that will be green and low carbon in its evolution – the first large green economy of the fourth industrial revolution.
India’s expectations from Glasgow COP26 should be uncluttered—its single purpose must be to catalyse global flows and investments to India and other emerging economies. If India fails to attract investments, the markets will clearly have not signed on to the climate agenda. In this effort, India needs a leg-up from the Climate Pontiffs.
Perpetuation of global poverty and low incomes cannot be the rich world’s climate mitigation strategy. ‘Net Zero’ should not seek this end state. On the contrary, investing in the emerging world’s green transition is the only way to build a ‘just’ world. The UN Secretary-General could help ensure that the largest pool of new money flows to where the climate battle will be fought—in India and in the emerging world. That would be a just transition and an efficient one.
At the spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank this week, we can expect measures to support low- and middle-income countries’ pandemic recovery that are laudable but fall well short of what is required. One likely outcome will be an allocation of up to $650bn in IMF special drawing rights, the fund’s reserve currency that is used to supplement members’ official reserves. An extended pause on debt service payments for the poorest countries and a commitment from wealthy nations to help finance the global distribution of Covid vaccines will probably also be agreed. All these measures will be welcome. But they will be only marginally helpful for countries where the end of the pandemic remains far off. They certainly will not prevent IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva’s warning of a “dangerous divergence” between economies from becoming a reality. The IMF’s projections show a prolonged and stumbling recovery for developing countries. Most are unlikely to vaccinate enough people to achieve herd immunity until 2023. Their financial buffers are near depleted, threatening the first rise in global poverty since 1990. Already 270m people face starvation. It is not too late to raise the ambition for the spring meetings. They could be used to trigger immediate action and set the agenda in a way that recognises the long-term impact of this crisis and matches it in scale, scope and duration. The IMF and the World Bank increased their lending last year. They now need to publicly commit to at least sustain their flows at this elevated level for the next five years. This will require an agreement between the institutions and their shareholders on more creative use of their balance sheets combined with commitments for new shareholder financing as needed. Second, a fundamental restructuring or writedown of debt is required for a significant number of developing countries. The common framework for debt treatments agreed by the G20 last November has potential but has achieved little so far. Shareholders should ask the IMF and World Bank to apply the framework and more actively address the debt issue, for instance by bringing recalcitrant private creditors to the table. Third, neither future pandemics nor climate change can be managed unless developing countries are engaged in the process. International financial institutions need to adapt their historical country-focused business model. Now is the time for shareholders to ask the leadership of the IFIs to produce ambitious proposals to address these global challenges.
Finally, international support for countries trapped in economic fragility and conflict remains fragmented and has yielded mixed results. The meetings should set out how IFIs and the UN can better co-ordinate on fragile states socially, politically and economically. During the pandemic there have been examples of solidarity and smart collaboration; the development of vaccines is perhaps the finest. As rich countries move from crisis management to shaping the recovery, it would be a mistake to think of the continuing crisis in the world’s poorest countries as someone else’s problem. Some will say these proposals extend the mandate of the IFIs. But maintaining the weak response we’ve seen so far would be a moral failure, and one lacking foresight. Aside from the obvious risk of leaving the virus free to circulate, it opens up the possibility of secondary crises — hunger, conflict and displacement — spilling over into the lives of everyone, everywhere. The spring meetings have the potential to determine whether this autumn is the beginning of the end of the pandemic, or the start of a more complex and dangerous phase for the world.
The writer is the UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs.
Masood Ahmed, president of the Center for Global Development, co-authored this article.
L’Union européenne (UE) est appelée à jouer un « rôle de premier plan » dans la relance des pourparlers entre les parties pour le règlement définitif du conflit autour du Sahara, a affirmé l’ancienne ministre espagnole des Affaires étrangères, Ana Palacio.
Le statu quo au Sahara -et au Maghreb plus largement- ne peut pas durer, a relevé l’ancienne cheffe de la diplomatie espagnole, dans une chronique publiée récemment par l’organisation médiatique internationale « Project Syndicate », basée à Prague, notant que « la guerre, si elle revenait, alimenterait l’instabilité dans toute la région ».
Revenant sur la reconnaissance par les Etats-Unis de la souveraineté pleine et entière du Maroc sur ses Provinces du Sud, elle a relevé que les « USA ne sont pas les seuls à soutenir le Maroc dans le différend du Sahara ».
« A la fin de 2020, 18 pays d’Afrique subsaharienne et du Golfe avaient ouvert, ou exprimé leur intention d’ouvrir, des consulats au Sahara, impliquant une reconnaissance tacite de la souveraineté marocaine », a-t-elle expliqué. De l’autre côté, a-t-elle indiqué, le Polisario a récemment contesté, sans succès, la légalité des exportations agricoles et des accords de pêche entre le Maroc et l’UE devant la Cour européenne de justice.
Elle affirme que « les Sahraouis sont pris en otage par le Polisario afin de soutenir le discours selon lequel le Maroc est un occupant, un discours qui n’est pas confirmé par le droit international », soutenant qu’aucune des 69 résolutions du Conseil de sécurité sur le Sahara « ne fait référence à une occupation ».
Ces résolutions, a-t-elle précisé, appellent plutôt les parties à négocier un règlement politique. A rappeler que le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies a, dans ses résolutions, notamment la dernière (2548), insisté sur la solution politique réaliste, pragmatique et durable qui repose sur le compromis, pour le règlement du conflit artificiel autour du Sahara. Il consacre de ce fait la prééminence de la proposition marocaine d’autonomie qui recueille le soutien de la communauté internationale et que l’administration américaine estime, à juste titre, comme étant la base de toute solution politique.
Si le COVID-19 persiste et continue de menacer des vies, deux scénarios semblent possibles. Des vagues d’infection récurrentes qui conduisent les gouvernements à osciller entre l’imposition et la levée de mesures sanitaires en fonction des hauts et des bas de l’épidémie. Ou un scénario de « zéro COVID » dans lequel des politiques d’endiguement sévères et soutenues au début, suivies de mesures sanitaires plus douces associées à un traçage et à des tests systématiques, viseraient à atteindre et à maintenir un niveau d’infection très bas. Bien que l’expérience suggère que ce deuxième scénario entraînerait des coûts humains et économiques à long terme moins élevés, les réalités géographiques, humaines et politiques au sein des pays et entre eux le rendent moins probable, du moins dans le cas d’économies ouvertes, étroitement intégrées et densément peuplées comme celles de l’Europe. Le premier semble plus probable.
Les économistes Jean Pisani-Ferry et Olivier Blanchard voient trois principales implications économiques d’un scénario d’épidémies récurrentes, qu’ils détaillent pour Terra Nova. La première est la fermeture durable des frontières, les pays essayant de se protéger des infections survenant ailleurs. La deuxième est la probabilité de confinements répétés. La troisième concerne les effets durables sur la composition de l’offre et de la demande.
Cet essai fait partie d’une série du Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) sur Economic Policy for a Pandemic Age: How the World Must Prepare for a Lasting Threat.
Les auteurs remercient Michael Kister pour son excellente assistance à la recherche, Nicolas Woloszko pour ses conseils sur les données de l’OCDE et Laurence Boone, Philippe Martin, Guntram Wolff et leurs collègues du PIIE pour leurs commentaires et critiques sur une version antérieure.
Dans un livre provoquant, ce diplomate singapourien ose poser la question : et si la Chine gagnait ? Un appel nécessaire au réalisme. Entretien, avec Jérémy André, correspondant du « Point » en Asie.
La filière des batteries électriques, en Europe et aux Etats-Unis, est renforcée par la reprise de la production de l’Usine du Sud en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Mais le nickel illustre aussi les tensions entre chinois et occidentaux.
La ville d’Anchorage en Alaska, avec ses températures polaires, tournée vers le Pacifique, a servi de décor adapté au climat de guerre froide qui règne entre la Chine et les Etats-Unis. Les deux pays, ont conclu vendredi deux jours de discussions « dures » mais « constructives » qui ont donné lieu au déballage inédit de leurs profonds désaccords, à l’image des tensions militaires et de la confrontation commerciale sans merci entre les deux premières puissances mondiales.
Symbole de ces tensions, la mer de Chine où s’observent désormais quotidiennement navires de guerre chinois et occidentaux. Cette route maritime, voit se croiser les exportations chinoises d’acier ou de batteries électriques, et les importations de matières premières venues d’Australie, d’Indonésie ou de Nouvelle-Calédonie pour le nickel. « Il y a une montée en puissance des tensions militaires dans la région qui s’ajoutent aux conflits commerciaux et ce sont les matières premières qui sont en première ligne » a estimé Philippe Chalmin, économiste et historien, fondateur du cercle Cyclope.
Jeudi soir, après les durs échanges verbaux entre les délégations américaines et chinoises à Anchorage, les cours des matières premières avaient baissé par peur du risque ; ainsi pour le nickel qui était passé sous le seuil des 16.000 dollars la tonne.
Mais vendredi, oubliant le sommet américano-chinois de l’Alaska, les analystes londoniens prenaient connaissance, positivement, de l’information publiée par Nouvelle-Calédonie la 1ère annonçant la reprise progressive de l’activité de l’Usine du Sud (Goro Resources). Le nickel hydroxyde cake produit par le grand complexe industriel calédonien, l’un des plus importants au monde, est le principal composant utilisé dans l’industrie des batteries rechargeables, celle des véhicules électriques. La production serait principalement destinée aux constructeurs occidentaux. Elle n’irait pas en Chine…« L’Usine du Sud a produit 23.400 tonnes de nickel en 2019. Elle a la capacité de produire jusqu’à 60 000 tonnes par an de NHC » a rappelé Anna Stublum, stratégiste de Marex Spectron.
« Les opérations de lixiviation du nickel à l’acide, comme à Goro en Nouvelle-Calédonie, sont toujours bien meilleures pour l’environnement que la production de nickel par une filière de fonte ».
Lyle Trytten, expert canadien du nickel (Trytten Consulting Services)
Faut-il y voir un signe ? Les tensions qui opposent d’un côté les Etats-Unis et leurs alliés, et de l’autre la Chine, ne sont pas absentes non plus de la bataille qui se livre autour du nickel de la transition énergétique. Comme en réponse à la participation de l’Américain Tesla au renouveau de l’usine calédonienne, le conglomérat chinois Tsingshan a annoncé qu’il disposait d’une alternative pour fournir du nickel au marché des voitures électriques. Du nickel de qualité batterie à partir de Nickel Pig Iron, un processus métallurgique qui est critiqué pour son impact environnemental. « C’est cette information qui a entraîné la baisse substantielle du prix du nickel », a rappelé le Metal Bulletin de Londres. Comme une illustration de la « compétition rude » qui oppose la Chine et les occidentaux, selon les termes utilisées par la délégation américaine à Anchorage.
Usine du Sud (nickel et cobalt) Vale Nouvelle-Calédonie
Cours du nickel au LME de Londres 16.262 dollars/tonne +1,56 % (-17,24 % sur un mois)
Far from being a purely technical matter, assessing firms’ non-financial performance is a deeply political issue. Europe’s inclusive governance model may give it a competitive edge in shaping global environmental, social, and governance regulations for firms and investors.
PARIS – Finance is evolving in a more sustainable direction, and just in time. Pension funds, insurance companies, and sovereign wealth funds have made multiple commitments on climate change, biodiversity, and economic inclusion. In each case, the aim is to treat finance as a tool, not an end in itself, and to adopt objectives that go well beyond financial returns.
Today, more than $40.5 trillion globally is invested according to environmental, social, and governance principles. But who defines what constitutes an ESG investment, and how far can we trust ESG statements issued by corporations? We need a set of genuinely global ESG standards – and Europe can, and should, play a leading role in formulating and implementing them.
Far from being a purely technical matter, assessing firms’ non-financial performance is a deeply political issue. The first step is the choice of indicators to measure a company’s environmental or social performance. Then there is the question of establishing baseline ESG standards that Europe, the United States, or China will require from all firms that want to do business in their market, as well as a frame of reference that will directly influence financial and investment flows.
Designing such indicators is an invaluable instrument for building sovereignty. Europe, in many respects a global leader in the environmental and social domains, should therefore seize the opportunity, and advance the case for a different kind of sovereignty that serves as a launchpad for global initiatives.
Since French President Emmanuel Macron advocated building European sovereignty in a 2017 speech, the European Union’s view on the issue has evolved significantly. Nowadays, member states are far less ambivalent about defending European sovereignty, whether in response to emerging digital monopolies, the economic risks of Brexit, or the public-health threat posed by COVID-19.
To safeguard its model and values, Europe can no longer just respond to events, but needs to be proactive in identifying and initiating measures that will spread beyond its borders. Assessing corporations’ non-financial performance can form part of a more assertive sovereignty that also enables Europe to address equally urgent issues such as climate change, social problems, and shifting geopolitical alignments.
For example, the EU has set itself far-reaching environmental goals, starting with achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2050. To that end, it recently developed a so-called green taxonomy, a standardized classification that enables assessment of the sustainability of 70 economic activities that together account for 93% of the EU’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
On the social front, the EU established the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000, and in 2017 proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights – granting its citizens new and more effective means of ensuring equal access to the labor market, fair working conditions, and increased social protection. And in October 2020, the European Commission proposed an EU directive to ensure adequate minimum wages for workers in member states.
But here, too, Europe is trapping itself in a defensive situation. Although Europe is protecting its sovereignty by building such an environmental and social framework, it has no desire to introduce these ideas elsewhere. But in a global economy where each country is trying to shape standards to its own advantage, the key is not merely to defend a model, but to present it to the world as a basis for further discussion.
Since its inception, the EU has frequently been criticized for its sluggishness and bureaucratic red tape. But in a union of 27 sovereign states, every decision is necessarily the result of negotiation and compromise. Moreover, decisions about what constitutes good or bad behavior relative to a norm should not be made lightly. Ironically, therefore, Europe’s inclusive governance model may give it a competitive edge in shaping global ESG standards.
With its large and prosperous single market, high savings rate, and powerful financial sector, Europe can potentially influence these standards through what Zaki Laïdi calls “norms over force.” This is the exact opposite of traditional political and military power, or, as Laïdi puts it, the “ability to produce and set up a worldwide mechanism of norms able to structure the world, to curb unruly behavior from entering players, to offer those who abide by the rules, particularly the less powerful, ample opportunity to make the norms stand against all, including the powerful.”
Furthermore, because measuring non-financial performance goes well beyond simple accounting, the transition to a more ecologically and socially sustainable capitalism through participants’ transparency and shared responsibility may become the polestar of a new European identity.
At a time when Europe is seeking to outgrow its internal political divisions, the EU has an opportunity to reiterate its environmental and social values without requiring member states to support a particular economic model, but rather by simply sticking to a results-based approach. Despite their historical and cultural differences, member states have many shared values that enable them to agree on the basics on issues such as gender equality or environmental protection.
One of the founding fathers of European integration, Jean Monnet, believed that sovereignty declines when it is entrenched in old patterns. Having designed a sovereignty that differs fundamentally from previously tested governance models, the EU must now demonstrate its vitality by extending its power beyond its single market.
More than any other jurisdiction, the EU should embrace new norms, not fear them. By requiring an evaluation of a firm’s environmental and social impact before granting access to its market, the EU would have a unique opportunity to assert both the singularity and the extent of its sovereignty.
In doing so, Europe would contribute to a necessarily global debate regarding the transition toward a sustainable, resilient, and inclusive capitalist economic model. This goal was implicit in the Sustainable Development Goals and Paris climate agreement that the world adopted in 2015. We now have a duty to make it overt.
Quelles perspectives pour le Liban ? Plusieurs mois après les explosions sur le port de Beyrouth et alors que le pays connaît une grave crise financière, Renaud Girard et Karim Bitar analysent la situation géopolitique.
Le Liban, c’était la coexistence miraculeuse dans un même Etat de dix-huit communautés religieuses, allant des musulmans sunnites aux chrétiens maronites, en passant par les chiites, les druzes, les Arméniens catholiques, les Arméniens orthodoxes, les Melkites et quelques autres.
Ce vivre ensemble plusieurs fois mis à mal est-il encore possible à l’heure de la guerre civile qui dirige l’islam et du choc Orient-Occident ? Faut-il considérer la double explosion dans le port de Beyrouth, le 4 août 2020, qui a soufflé les quartiers alentours et qui a fait 204 morts et 6 500 blessés comme l’apocalypse terminale de cette exception politique dont le pacte national stipulait qu’elle devait se tenir à égale distance de l’Occident et du monde arabe ? Pour nous éclairer et nous guider avec des idées justes dans le Liban compliqué, j’ai convié ce matin Renaud Girard, chroniqueur international au Figaro et Karim Emile Bitar, directeur de l’Institut de sciences politiques à l’Université Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth.
Le Liban, tel que nous le connaissions, a définitivement disparu, il ne renaîtra pas. Les contours du nouveau Liban tardent à se définir et nous sommes dans ce clair-obscur où les monstres surgissent ; les monstres se sont bien évidemment les assassins de Lokman Slim. Karim Emile Bitar
L’un des gros problèmes du Liban, c’est l’absence de démocratie intra-communautaire. Il est extrêmement difficile de faire entendre une voix qui soit contraire à celle de la majorité de sa communauté. […] Aujourd’hui, nous sommes dans cette situation où une majorité a quelque peu embrigadé la communauté chiite. Le Hezbollah n’est que l’un des avatars de ces monstres qui surgissent sur la scène libanaise. Karim Emile Bitar
Enjeux internationaux
Karim Emile Bitar et Renaud Girard esquissent une géopolitique de la région, évoquent le communautarisme et la nécessité de faire triompher cette notion de citoyenneté.
La plupart des analystes estiment aujourd’hui que cette politique de pression maximale de Téhéran qu’a menée Donald Trump a plutôt été un échec, qu’elle est plutôt venue faire le jeu des ultra-conservateurs iraniens, qu’elle n’est pas véritablement venue affaiblir l’Iran. Mais au contraire, lui donner un certain nombre d’atouts. […] Près de 70 à 80% de la communauté chiite libanaise soutient le Hezbollah. Malgré toutes ces dérives idéologiques, même ceux qui ne partagent absolument pas son idéologie islamiste le suivent dans son opposition à Israël parce qu’ils estiment qu’il constitue une force de dissuasion et qu’ils ne souhaitent pas qu’Israël puisse à nouveau envahir le Liban comme par le passé. Karim Emile Bitar
Le général Gouraud, après avoir battu les armées arabes en Syrie lorsqu’il prononce la souveraineté du Grand Liban le 1 septembre 1920, envisage déjà un système de cantons suisses. Je pense que c’est sans doute la solution pour le Liban : le fédéralisme mais pas sur des lignes ethniques, sur des lignes régionales qui existent aujourd’hui. Renaud Girard
L’Europe se trompe en voulant imposer des sanctions à la Russie après la condamnation de Navalny. Elles pénalisent le commerce alors que c’est ce qui devrait les rapprocher.
Le Conseil des affaires étrangères de l’Union européenne (UE), qui se tiendra le lundi 22 février 2021 à Bruxelles, sera dédié aux relations qu’elle doit construire avec la Russie. C’est dans cette enceinte que le haut représentant européen pour les Affaires étrangères rendra compte des résultats de son déplacement à Moscou du vendredi 5 février. L’Espagnol Josep Borrell y était allé notamment pour demander la libération de l’opposant Alexeï Navalny, qu’un tribunal moscovite vient de condamner à deux ans et huit mois de prison ferme, sans qu’il ait commis le moindre délit réel. Devant la presse, le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères avait fait la leçon au haut représentant. Sergueï Lavrov avait fustigé l’«exceptionnalisme» des Occidentaux qui, selon lui, s’arrogent le droit de s’ingérer, comme ils veulent et quand ils veulent, dans les affaires intérieures des autres pays. Le même jour, son ministère expulsait trois diplomates européens (un Allemand, un Polonais et un Suédois) ayant […]
PARIS – Finance is evolving in a more sustainable direction, and just in time. Pension funds, insurance companies, and sovereign wealth funds have made multiple commitments on climate change, biodiversity, and economic inclusion. In each case, the aim is to treat finance as a tool, not an end in itself, and to adopt objectives that go well beyond financial returns.
Today, more than $40.5 trillion globally is invested according to environmental, social, and governance principles. But who defines what constitutes an ESG investment, and how far can we trust ESG statements issued by corporations? We need a set of genuinely global ESG standards – and Europe can, and should, play a leading role in formulating and implementing them.
Far from being a purely technical matter, assessing firms’ non-financial performance is a deeply political issue. The first step is the choice of indicators to measure a company’s environmental or social performance. Then there is the question of establishing baseline ESG standards that Europe, the United States, or China will require from all firms that want to do business in their market, as well as a frame of reference that will directly influence financial and investment flows.
Designing such indicators is an invaluable instrument for building sovereignty. Europe, in many respects a global leader in the environmental and social domains, should therefore seize the opportunity, and advance the case for a different kind of sovereignty that serves as a launchpad for global initiatives.
Since French President Emmanuel Macron advocated building European sovereignty in a 2017 speech, the European Union’s view on the issue has evolved significantly. Nowadays, member states are far less ambivalent about defending European sovereignty, whether in response to emerging digital monopolies, the economic risks of Brexit, or the public-health threat posed by COVID-19.
To safeguard its model and values, Europe can no longer just respond to events, but needs to be proactive in identifying and initiating measures that will spread beyond its borders. Assessing corporations’ non-financial performance can form part of a more assertive sovereignty that also enables Europe to address equally urgent issues such as climate change, social problems, and shifting geopolitical alignments.
For example, the EU has set itself far-reaching environmental goals, starting with achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2050. To that end, it recently developed a so-called green taxonomy, a standardized classification that enables assessment of the sustainability of 70 economic activities that together account for 93% of the EU’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
On the social front, the EU established the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000, and in 2017 proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights – granting its citizens new and more effective means of ensuring equal access to the labor market, fair working conditions, and increased social protection. And in October 2020, the European Commission proposed an EU directive to ensure adequate minimum wages for workers in member states.
But here, too, Europe is trapping itself in a defensive situation. Although Europe is protecting its sovereignty by building such an environmental and social framework, it has no desire to introduce these ideas elsewhere. But in a global economy where each country is trying to shape standards to its own advantage, the key is not merely to defend a model, but to present it to the world as a basis for further discussion.
Since its inception, the EU has frequently been criticized for its sluggishness and bureaucratic red tape. But in a union of 27 sovereign states, every decision is necessarily the result of negotiation and compromise. Moreover, decisions about what constitutes good or bad behavior relative to a norm should not be made lightly. Ironically, therefore, Europe’s inclusive governance model may give it a competitive edge in shaping global ESG standards.
With its large and prosperous single market, high savings rate, and powerful financial sector, Europe can potentially influence these standards through what Zaki Laïdi calls “norms over force.” This is the exact opposite of traditional political and military power, or, as Laïdi puts it, the “ability to produce and set up a worldwide mechanism of norms able to structure the world, to curb unruly behavior from entering players, to offer those who abide by the rules, particularly the less powerful, ample opportunity to make the norms stand against all, including the powerful.”
Furthermore, because measuring non-financial performance goes well beyond simple accounting, the transition to a more ecologically and socially sustainable capitalism through participants’ transparency and shared responsibility may become the polestar of a new European identity.
At a time when Europe is seeking to outgrow its internal political divisions, the EU has an opportunity to reiterate its environmental and social values without requiring member states to support a particular economic model, but rather by simply sticking to a results-based approach. Despite their historical and cultural differences, member states have many shared values that enable them to agree on the basics on issues such as gender equality or environmental protection.
One of the founding fathers of European integration, Jean Monnet, believed that sovereignty declines when it is entrenched in old patterns. Having designed a sovereignty that differs fundamentally from previously tested governance models, the EU must now demonstrate its vitality by extending its power beyond its single market.
More than any other jurisdiction, the EU should embrace new norms, not fear them. By requiring an evaluation of a firm’s environmental and social impact before granting access to its market, the EU would have a unique opportunity to assert both the singularity and the extent of its sovereignty.
In doing so, Europe would contribute to a necessarily global debate regarding the transition toward a sustainable, resilient, and inclusive capitalist economic model. This goal was implicit in the Sustainable Development Goals and Paris climate agreement that the world adopted in 2015. We now have a duty to make it overt.