Back in 1977, economist John Kenneth Galbraith published a bookor who wanted to portray the circumstance that was opening up for the world in matters economic and its effects geopolitical: characterized the stage as an era of uncertaintythat is, of the main doubts philosophical about him world stage. The year of 2023, nearly half a century after the marking of Galbraiththe planet faces an even more serious situation of uncertainty: the possibility of a nuclear warthe conspicuous absence of world leadersthe end in the globalization due to the pandemic and of the ukrainian war and most notably the lack of a philosophical reflection on short-term world scenarios.
The leaders of the three main world powers – the United States, Russia and China –– They have the obligation to sit down to discuss the scenarios of the planetary crisis as the summit of And tall after the Second World War, but paradoxically those leaders are thinking about scenarios of warof confrontation and of conquest.
Threats of a nuclear warr are part of the speeches of the rulers of countries that have nuclear arsenals enough to destroy the planet, with the aggravating circumstance that they would be the first losers in a conflagration of this nature. Along with it, the pandemic and the effects of the ukrainian war they keep sinking the economic crisis in increasingly distant expectations of damage control.
Globalization is not being thought out either by the beneficiary countries of the integration economic, productive and of consumptiondeteriorating the economic expectations for 2023 below the precarious figures of 2022, with a social effect of impoverishment Y marginalization that will become a factor of instability in the consumer sectors that are being marginalized of the low expectations of the rhythm economic.
The main characteristic of the year that is beginning can be summed up in a serious problem: the lack of global leadership. american president Joseph Biden continues to be overwhelmed by the harassment of the former president donald trump in a very domestic dispute over the White House, but with approaches geostrategic very short-term and superficial, as perceived in the fears to face a solution to the ukrainian war but from the accumulation of evidence in the sense that Washington pushed the conflagration into a sensitive area of Euro Asia to reduce regional mobility spaces to Putin’s Russia, without foreseeing the destructive effects.
The Russian president, in turn, has not been able to define a geopolitical reason to have fallen into the garlito US and have invaded Ukraine before the first movements to reinforce the military alliance of the NATO as a way of encapsulating the spaces of influence of Moscow. as it happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and before with United States in Vietnamthe big ones nuclear powers They are drawn as countries with the inability to influence the world reorganization and have been defeated by underdeveloped societies with feelings nationalists.
Expectations remain highly uncertain regarding Chinese President Jinping, above all because China –in the pun invented by the president Mao in respect of USA— It could also look like a paper tiger, that is, a ferocious cat that could scare the unwary, but without the real ability to launch into a true universal conquest. Despite his power military man Y economic, China lacks the imperial approaches of USA: the decision to invade countries and overthrow governmentsthe technology to control modern production chains and a currency that could not replace the power of the dollar.
In this context, the world begins the year of 2023 without any expectation of certainty regarding what could happen, above all due to the fragility of the balances geopolitical Y military and the incapacity of the president Biden to discuss with putin Y jinping a new global rearrangement that would return to the certainties of peace in the world and from there rebuild the expectations that the 1989 economic globalization Y productive and that over the years it could not increase the welfare levels of dependent societies.
The bad thing about the international scenario is that there are no possibilities to improve expectations: the economy growth will continue to slow, military threats will escalate the language of nuclear destructionmistrust between the leaders of the three main powers prevent at least the minimum of certainty and the countries that depend on the great powers are also suffering from regional conflicts that reproduce the disagreements of the great leaders.
In this scenario, then, the criteria are established that the planet is entering a long era of uncertainty that will cause deterioration in the economic growth and will continue to keep the great powers on the edge of a nuclear conflagration.
The content of this column is the sole responsibility of the columnist and not of the newspaper that publishes it.
Leave a Reply