B3W'ing into the BRI
Being proven wrong is excellent; one can learn from it
In the previous article, whilst reviewing some post WWII history, and looking at what has been happening in the last decade, particularly through the lens of BRI, the author predicted that there would be no mention of China's infrastructure development at the upcoming US/Russia summit in Geneva.
Whilst not yet technically wrong, the author is very happy to see that an announcement from the US Whitehouse and the G7 Communique do address this. The US version is called Build Back Better World (B3W), which one can see as a reference to Biden's national political efforts.
The B3W statement is full of political rhetoric, but has to get the point in the end. Take:
"Through B3W, the G7 and other like-minded partners with coordinate in mobilizing private-sector capital in four areas of focus—climate, health and health security, digital technology, and gender equity and equality—with catalytic investments from our respective development finance institutions."
That is a direct copy/paste from the official whitehouse site, as linked at the time of publication (2021-06-14T18:41:11+02:00) . I offer my services to them as a copy editor; “with coordinate” makes sense in mathematics, but not in policy directives. Try “will”.
Further down and in bold is stated:
"B3W will collectively catalyze hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure investment for low- and middle-income countries in the coming years."
So, there are the key words. Not the 4 areas of "climate, health, technology and equality", but infrastructure for "low- and middle-income countries". These can, of course, align. May I suggest having solar panels installed on the roof of a hospital in Bangladesh, with real-time digital monitoring for the energy production and cost savings, and having those panels installed by persons employed from a disadvantaged minority? That may sound flippant. Is it such a bad idea?
They mention that they'll be attempting to use private capital in this approach, which is a signpost to the free market capitalist versus planned but mixed economy political division. This division is largely fake, but makes for nice political rhetoric. Take anti-trust law as a starting point to see the false dichotomy. Anti-Trust Law serves a very useful purpose in protecting consumers from being abused by monopoly businesses; but see it for what it is: state intervention in local markets. The author is all for this but observes that these anti-trust laws are selectively applied and require political backing. Take US telecommunications companies, media concentration and Big Tech as examples. The natural question is who is benefiting from the lack of anti-trust action against these consolidated industries?
One could see B3W as playing "catch up" with BRI, and while this may be true, there is a broader and more positive perspective. China's Asia Infrastructure Development Bank has introduced some competition into the international aid market, and now the US and G7 are going to be refocusing on this to hinder the BRI. Hopefully what this does is offer wider options for developing countries on the conditions attached to these loans. This may be a new Cold War over aid budgets with developing countries forced to side with A or B and prevented from seeking a non-aligned status, which would be par for the course of recent history.
The herds of elephants in the room are the unilateral, or even multi-lateral economic sanctions being imposed on countries without a UN Security Council mandate, which makes them illegal under international law. While the country or countries imposing these measures of economic war are spared having photographs of coffins containing the dead bodies of their young people draped in a national flag being plastered all over their news media, they do kill people and cause suffering in the targeted country. The US CAESAR Sanctions on Syria come to mind. The author finds it interesting to consider changes in the relative mix of political support for, or funding of, overt war, covert war and economic war in international conflict since WWII and how this relates to the “manufacturing consent” media industries and the changing economies of the countries deploying these measures.
This new competition in aid markets, if it eventuates, may provide greater options for developing economies. It may even encourage some solidarity between them to protest against illegal economic sanctions. There are potentially many interesting geopolitical events to come as different factions respond to this potential shift in international aid prioritization.
One of those responses may come in Latin America. Although the popular socialist candidate in the recent Equadorian election was narrowly defeated, we seem to have a socialist government in Peru [video], the military coup against Bolivia was defeated and Lula in Brazil is now free to run in next year’s election. Will the“Pink Tide” return to Latin America, keeping the CIA rather busy in their “own backyard”? How will this new aid budget prioritization influence these developments?
Sources
FACT SHEET: President Biden and G7 Leaders Launch Build Back Better World (B3W) Partnership
Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela
US sanctions violate human rights and international code of conduct, UN expert says
Left-Wing Wave Sweeps Latin America as Peru's Pedro Castillo Declares Victory (Ollie Vargas) [video]
Many wanted Morales out. But what happened in Bolivia was a military coup
The title image is from Picpedia.org used under CC-BY-SA-3.0. The image source is here.
