The Riddle
An article that appeared in the Spanish news El País, on 06-28-20 and in another local newspaper on 06-29-20, caught my attention because I have a different understanding on the different topics the renowned author has of the same, which I will not identify to not distract the reader with a personality but rather with his ideas.
The article begins with a question (without the immediate answer one expects straight away it invited us to guess it).
This reminded me of a "riddle", which, like in the opera Turandot and many works of world literature, is always solved at the end.
I think we can all participate in the debate on the future as a result of this global misfortune, probably the worst in world history, but also because it is also the whole question affects the future of Venezuela. I dare to share these counter-ideas so that readers have various perspectives on a topic of such importance. For those who did not read that text, it started with a question:
"What do Washington's prestige, international cooperation, fiscal austerity and globalization have in common?"
My answer: I don't think they have anything in common unless we are stating that all human activities are in some ways interrelated.
The author also noted: “The COVID-19 not only kills people, but it also kills ideas. And when it doesn't kill them, it discredits them. Traditional ideas about offices, hospitals, and universities, for example, will not survive unscathed by the economic aftermath of the pandemic. Nor will some of the more global ideas about economics and politics. These four, for example.
We extract some of those last “four ideas”:
1 - “- The United States is a source of stability for the world. False. But no war or economic crisis has lost as much global influence to the United States as Donald Trump has. Since his election in 2016, the president has shown, almost daily, that instead of calming the world and his country, he prefers to foment conflict and stir discord. Their reactions to the pandemic have reconfirmed that the White House is a volatile, clumsy and unreliable ally. "
I share that it is false, but for different reasons. (I do not rule on his judgment of President Trump but I am interested in commenting on the ideas supporting his judgment.
It departs from the concept that a single government can destabilize the global order of the international system. I do not think it is possible unless it unleashes a war of such proportions that endangers the System. No actor in international relations is a "source of stability". Stability is not provided by a State. It is the International System that offers stability until one or more of the actors breaks with "the rules of the system". It is there when the international system is destabilized and it is when it can give way to a rearrangement of actors and their operating rules. Eg II G.M.
Right now, there is a multipolar system with a variety of rules. I do not believe that until now any of the System's operating rules have been structurally broken. What we are witnessing are changes in the intensity of the interaction. Changes in the form and substance of conflicts.
It means that we have a lot of international tensions. They are strong, but those tensions may have a logic. They are instruments to achieve ends. (President Trump seems to be an expert in the use of this technique). They are not intended (tensions) to destroy the System because they cannot. They can be remedied with changes in the positions that create them. Eg. the NAFTA crisis at the beginning of the Trump government. Well, that particular tension in international trade no longer exists after three years. In other words, the use of mechanisms to achieve purposes in international politics will persist. The System will prevail or it will be modified.
2.-International cooperation. The pandemic has confirmed that there is no international community capable of dealing with global threats in concert. … The COVID-19 has demonstrated conclusively that this alleged international community that works in coordination does not exist. … Distrust of international cooperation has also contributed to fragmenting and making ineffective coordination between countries regarding standards, production and distribution of medicines and medical materials. And this is another irony: the loss of prestige of international collaboration has meant that a global threat has been given an essentially local and inadequate response. This seems like a strong judgment concerning the pandemic and the gigantic emigrations, both unexpected.
My opinion: international cooperation has existed and continues to exist. International cooperation mechanisms - although I admit it would be desirable - are not like those mechanisms of firefighters that react immediately to the alarm because they know in advance the destructive nature of fire and its causes. And they have the instruments at their disposal to eliminate it. This has been an epidemic widely unknown to Humanity, with no idea of the speed of its voracious spread, and consequently, there is no quick response in unison and effectiveness. But it does not mean that every single nation caught by surprise is not trying to cope with whatever is available. (for example, in France for some time they have a short supply of masks and gloves for personnel, as in Italy).
It is simply not possible to react efficiently with the amount of resources available, but this cannot lead to ignoring the permanent worldwide silent work of the UN system, the work of multiple public and private organizations and thousands of NGOs.
Accepting the opposite would be equivalent to ignore countries contributions to development through multilateral bodies and individual countries such as the Nordics, which always contributed well over 1% of their GDP to developing countries. Holland, e.g. it has contributed more than 2% of its GDP since 2015. In other words, international cooperation exists. Incidentally, Venezuela was an example in the matter until some time ago.
What is undeniable is that the progress of international cooperation is badly affected when multilateralism is weakened and unfortunately it has been happening. Unquestionably, the withdrawal or threat of funding cuts of multilateral institutions create uncertainties that end up affecting the efficiency of international cooperation mechanisms. But those uncertainties have historically always been overcome in some way. On the other hand, unilateralism or multilateralism are ways of expressing the interaction of the international community. Both have advantages and disadvantages, although in the face of great problems or conflicts multilateralism is the supreme means of a peaceful solution. If not, we would have already had the III W W.
That is why the UN was created.
Incidentally, history indicates - although we observe the repetition to the contrary - that American unilateralism is from the harvest of Pres. Trump. It is not true. Postwar multilateralism was rather an exception. All governments have had the unilateralist doctrine raised by president Washington himself.
3.- Fiscal austerity -the author points out that -this formerly very popular idea as an obligatory remedy to face a financial crisis, is now toxic.
Well, it is quite the opposite in my opinion. Austerity was never "very popular" in times of crisis, except among conservative groups or adherents of the Supply Side theory.
Even the ultra-conservative M. Thatcher could not maintain that austerity position in the pernicious British crisis of the 1980s. She succumbed to the temptation to increase public spending in order to increase employment and income.
USA president Hoover increased public spending by 88% between 1929 and 1933 before the financial crisis of the Great Depression. The same path pres. Roosevelt. The great Keynes rather criticized president Roosevelt public spending because "it was not big enough and sustained".
In the recent crisis of 2008, "The Great Recession," the FED (US Central Bank) used fiscal and monetary mechanisms; a combination of public spending and tax cuts conveniently called "stimulus" (2008 Economic Stimulus Act and the "Reinvestment and Recovery Law" that established a spending budget of $ 787 billion as well as a range of measures of a social nature. But it must be clear that presidents do not have the last word. Congress approves the expenses. So it is responsible as much, or more, than presidents.
In brief, I do think austerity has been the "fashion recipe". Instead public expenditure and taxes have been the formula in the former century and the current.
-The fiscal deficit ... has skyrocketed to levels never seen before.
Never seen? The Obama administration's fiscal deficit in 2009 was the largest in US fiscal history. It exceeded one trillion dollars
Trump's last year was $ 984 billion. For this year's, it is most likely that it will surpass Obama since a package of more than two trillion is being prepared due to the effects of the pandemic. Furthermore, it is important that, in terms of the size of the economy, the largest deficit was that of F. D. Roosevelt in II W. W.
- 4 -Globalization. This is another idea that was previously idealized and is now demonized
Globalization is not an idea, (not at least in the Platonic sense) nor do I think it has been idealized. That is, at least not by developing countries. It is rather a phenomenon of international relations. I am personally aware of the enormous political obstacles to its recognition and acceptance by developing countries. Since its appearance, many years have passed and it still presents enormous challenges, so the basic mistrust towards it continues. The challenges it creates are multiple and for most poor country’s real benefits in terms of development are unattainable under the current terms of trade.
True, there are uncertainties and plenty of reasons to worry about the future of the world economy and international cooperation. It is clear that the United States is the most important actor and its foreign policy decisions may affect the international system, but it does not destroy it unless it intends to unleash global chaos. That -fortunately- is not on the agenda, I presume.
At the end of the article, the author reminds us of the "riddle" and offers us his answer:
"What do these discredited ideas have in common? that the four are important pillars of the world order that emerged after World War II."
We are not in favour of these being the pillars of the order that stemmed from WW II.
It seems to us that the four pillars of that world order are intact in the Preamble of the 1945 UN Charter:
1-maintain international peace and security
2-promote friendly relations
3-carry out international cooperation in solving international problems
4-serve as a centre that harmonizes the efforts of nations to achieve these common purposes.
These are as valid as when we joined it in 1945. We will continue to fight for those principles and goals after the pandemic without the dejection of the human race.
That's the solution to the provocative "riddle".
©Vicente Emilio Vallenilla
@vicevall
