elpais.com
The Geoeconomic Summer of 2024: US Dominance and the Price of Interdependence
The summer of 2024 witnessed the signing of numerous asymmetric trade agreements, highlighting the cost of economic interdependence for US allies, particularly Europe, as the US leveraged its economic power for geopolitical advantage.
- What explains the surge in what some call 'economic capitulations' in 2024?
- The surge is explained by the US's use of geoeconomics, leveraging economic tools to project geopolitical power. This isn't merely a trade war, but a systematic subordination of the economy to political and national security goals, with restrictive measures affecting $887.6 billion in trade flows between October 2023 and October 2024, a 160% increase year-on-year.
- What are the potential responses to this new geoeconomic reality, and what is the outlook for the future?
- To counter US dominance, alternatives to the dollar and strategies like creating a large eurobond market are necessary. The core issue is shifting from traditional economic rationality (mutual gains) to geopolitical rationality (maximizing relative advantage, even at the cost of overall economic loss). Understanding this shift is crucial for navigating the future international system.
- How does the US's economic power affect its geopolitical leverage, and what are the vulnerabilities of its rivals?
- The US's dominance in financial services (80-90% in certain segments), control of the dollar (60% of global reserves), and the resulting ability to inflict significant economic losses on rivals (5.8% of China's GDP and 8.6% of the EU's GDP, with minimal vulnerability itself) explains its leverage. China's manufacturing dominance is offset by the relative ease of relocating production compared to the difficulty of substituting US financial services.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the economic events of 2024 as a 'summer of humiliation' for European allies of the United States, emphasizing the asymmetry of trade agreements and the subordination of economics to geopolitical power. This framing, while supported by data, presents a negative and potentially biased perspective on the situation, potentially overlooking any benefits or positive aspects of the agreements. The headline itself is a strong example of this framing, setting a negative tone from the outset.
Language Bias
The article uses strong language such as "humiliation," "capitulaciones económicas" (economic capitulations), and "subordinación sistemática" (systematic subordination) to describe the economic events. While these terms might reflect the author's interpretation of the situation, they lack neutrality and could influence reader perception. More neutral alternatives could include phrases like 'asymmetric trade deals,' 'economic shifts,' and 'increased economic influence.' The use of the term "su moneda, pero nuestro problema" (their currency, but our problem) clearly demonstrates a biased stance.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the negative consequences for European allies and the power of the US, potentially omitting counterarguments or perspectives from the US or other involved parties. While acknowledging limitations of space, exploring potential benefits or justifications from the US side could provide a more balanced perspective and allow readers to draw more informed conclusions. The lack of specific examples of the 'asymmetric' trade deals also limits the ability to assess the claim fully.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by implying that the only explanation for the economic shifts is the exertion of geopolitical power, neglecting other potential factors such as global economic conditions, internal political dynamics within the involved countries, or the impact of other international actors. A more nuanced perspective would acknowledge the complexity of the situation and consider multiple contributing factors.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how the US uses its economic dominance to exert geopolitical power, leading to asymmetrical trade agreements and harming the economies of its allies (EU). This creates and exacerbates economic inequalities between nations, hindering progress towards SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries. The text explicitly describes how the US can inflict significant economic losses on the EU and China, while facing minimal vulnerability itself, highlighting a severe imbalance of power and wealth.