In 1972, a study on the ‘limits of growth’ commissioned by The Club of Rome issued a dire Malthusian warning that without significant restrictions on observed patterns of resource consumption, there would be a sharp decline in both economic activity and population growth. will have to face. Around the middle of the 21st century. A recent repeated validation check (Vol. 25, No. 3) by Gaya Harrington in the Journal of Industrial Ecology in 2020 has unfortunately confirmed that there has been no significant change in resource consumption patterns. Fifty years later, the Global Commission has now issued a similar dire warning in its recent report, which overlaps with the study of ‘the extent of development’ but is quite different.
A group of eminent global citizens from across the globe including India’s Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the Commission has highlighted the major challenges facing the world today. A sad message from their report is that despite known technological solutions to these challenges, the global institutions and governance priorities needed to deliver these solutions are missing.
The most pressing challenge is, of course, the continuing COVID pandemic. Many vaccines are now available, a great achievement for scientists. But the distribution of vaccines has been very limited in most developing countries. And the global response to providing vaccines adequately and affordable to these countries has been grossly inadequate. This provides the time and space for new forms to emerge and for the pandemic to persist.
Consequences of the prevailing pandemic, supply constraints, growing inequality, lack of demand and massive public debt in developing countries are holding back economic recovery. The deep uncertainties posed by the pandemic are affecting business decisions as well as government policies that enable massive private investment and public spending on infrastructure, health and education to lift the global economy from its current crisis. are necessary.
Behind these immediate challenges is the long-standing climate crisis. Once again, the technologies needed to replace carbon-emitting fossil fuels by renewable energy are known and commercially viable. But most developing countries lack the resources to finance the large investments needed to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy within the time available to prevent catastrophic global warming. And misplaced national interests in advanced countries have clouded perceptions about negative global externalities in developing countries not funding such transitions. Be a witness to the recently concluded CoP-26 Glasgow Summit.
The asymmetry between major challenges that are global and policy responses that are national, particularly those of major countries, is a major challenge in itself. There is no global body, not even a United Nations organization, that has the necessary powers to override the priorities of individual countries, especially major powers. In fact, these institutions are usually controlled by the most powerful nations. The Commission attributes its failure to seriously address the great challenges of our times to this missing global body. In particular, the Commission has identified the rapidly deteriorating relations between the two most powerful countries, China and the US, as the most dangerous challenge we face today.
That warning is welcome. Rising tensions between the US coupled with bipartisan support for a more aggressive China policy and an increasingly assertive China under President Xi Jinping could have disastrous consequences not only for these two countries, but for the entire world. However, such a result is not inevitable. During the Cold War, the fear of mutually assured destruction held the US and Soviet Union from the brink for nearly 50 years. Today’s leaders of China and America should have the same kind of fear.
Furthermore, as Harvard economist Dani Roderick recently argued, a positive-sum strategic perspective provides better results than a zero-sum approach. Taking that positive path isn’t easy, with the many risks of doing things wrong. But a strong framework of communication can stave off misunderstandings and accidental conflict (Mint, 12 November 2021; bit.ly/3oBQcxG).
There is some indication that the leaders of the two countries are indeed looking for ways to avoid an accidental conflict. The day the Chinese Communist Party recognized Xi as one of the party’s biggest leaders, along with Mao and Deng, he issued a warning against the risks of a new Cold War in Asia. On the same day, China and the US, the world’s two largest carbon emitters, also signed an agreement to increase their cooperation in accelerating action on the climate front. This was perhaps the most important outcome other than the COP-26 summit, which in itself was disappointing, as expected. Presidents Biden and Xi have since held a bilateral virtual summit with candid discussions on a number of outstanding issues. There was no agreement and no outcome was expected. Its purpose was to establish lines of communication to pre-empt accidental conflict through misunderstanding or miscommunication, which Roderick suggested.
So where does all this leave India? Like most countries, India will primarily be a passive recipient of what generates great power rivalry. However, with its partners, India can seek to lead both China and the US towards positive outcomes that address the major global challenges of our times.
Such a change in strategic approach would greatly benefit not only the two countries but also the rest of the world.
Sudipto Mundele is a Distinguished Fellow in the National Council of Applied Economic Research. These are personal views of the author.
Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint.
download
Our App Now!!
,