lemonde.fr
Resurgence of Geo-economics in Global Power Dynamics
The term 'geo-economics,' denoting the use of economic tools for geopolitical power, is experiencing a resurgence, evidenced by recent actions such as Donald Trump's tariffs and the growing influence of GAFAM.
- What are the key indicators demonstrating the resurgence of geo-economics as a primary driver of international relations?
- The resurgence of geo-economics, marked by states leveraging economic tools to bolster power, is evident in recent events such as Trump's tariffs, actions concerning the Panama Canal and Greenland, maritime maneuvers in the South China Sea, semiconductor disputes, sanctions against Russia, and the assertion of GAFAM's power. This renewed focus on geo-economics signals a shift in global power dynamics.
- How did the end of the Cold War contribute to the conceptual development and rise of geo-economics as a significant geopolitical strategy?
- Geo-economics emerged in the early 1990s, following the USSR's collapse, as a framework to understand evolving global power dynamics beyond traditional military conflict. Edward Luttwak's 1990 article in The National Interest highlighted the increasing use of economic tools, such as capital, to achieve geopolitical objectives, foreshadowing the globalization era.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the increasing use of geo-economic tools on global economic stability and international cooperation?
- The future of geo-economics suggests intensified economic competition among nations, potentially leading to further trade disputes, technological protectionism, and financial maneuvering. This trend necessitates a deeper understanding of the interplay between economic and geopolitical strategies, impacting global stability and cooperation.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the resurgence of geo-economics through the lens of actions by the US (Trump administration) and China. While these are significant actors, this framing might overshadow other significant geopolitical players and nuances of the phenomenon. The headline, if any, would further impact this.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and descriptive. The phrases "bras de fer" (arm wrestling) and "pillage des savoir-faire technologiques" (pillage of technological know-how) carry a slightly negative connotation, but this is arguably appropriate to the context.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the actions of the US and China, with limited mention of other countries' involvement in geo-economics. This omission could limit the reader's understanding of the global nature of the phenomenon. While acknowledging space constraints, a broader perspective would strengthen the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present false dichotomies, but implicitly suggests a shift from military conflict to economic competition as the primary driver of international relations. This simplification overlooks the complex interplay between both.
Sustainable Development Goals
The text highlights how geopolitical economic strategies, such as trade wars, sanctions, and support for national champions, can exacerbate economic inequalities between nations and within nations. These actions often disproportionately impact developing countries and vulnerable populations, hindering their economic growth and development and widening the gap between rich and poor nations.