Goodbye 2023; Hello 2024

 

Loading...

2023 will be remembered as a tipping point year when almost all mega-trends of finance, technology, trade, geopolitics, war and climate heating showed signs of acceleration in speed, scale and scope.

. 2023 will be remembered as a tipping point year when almost all mega-trends of finance, technology, trade, geopolitics, war and climate heating showed signs of acceleration in speed, scale and scope.

You can call this a state of permacrises, a series of cascading shocks that seem to be building up to a bigger shock sometime in the future.

In finance, the year began with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank on 10 March 2023, followed by Signature Bank. The Fed and FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) acted fast to guarantee all deposits to stop what is now called “Twitter Deposit Runs” against banks. In Switzerland, Credit Suisse was taken over by UBS on 19 March, after the bank lost nearly US$ 75 billion worth of deposits in three months. Swiss financial credibility was hurt when Credit Suisse AT1 (Tier One bonds) bond-holders became outraged that they should suffer write-downs ahead of equity holders.

Although prompt action by the Fed and Suisse financial authorities averted global contagion and restored calm to financial markets, the Fed hiked interest rates four times in 2023 to 5.25-5.5% to tackle inflation. This month, gold prices touched a record high of US$2,100 per ounce, signalling anticipated inflation abatement, but escalated geopolitical tensions.

In technology, 2023 marked the seismic arrival of generative artificial intelligence (AI), through the public launch of ChatGPT in November 2022. Commercialized AI is considered the next big thing after the internet, sparking off a US tech stock rally, led by the Magnificent Seven companies in AI-related software and hardware. The rally averted a year of portfolio losses in financial markets hurt by interest rate hikes.

In trade, the latest UNCTAD Global Trade Update found that global trade will shrink by 5% to US$ 30.7 trillion in 2023, with trade in goods declining by nearly US$2 trillion, whereas trade in services would expand by US$500 billion. The outlook for 2024 is pessimistic because trade issues are now geopolitical, rather than purely market-driven. Global supply chains are either decoupling or de-risking to avoid possible sanctions which have been imposed for geopolitical reasons.

Geopolitics dominated headlines in 2023, as diplomacy played second fiddle to the militarization or weaponization of everything.

The biggest risk faced by businesses today is national security risk, in case companies or financial institutions are caught in geopolitical tit-for-tat arising from binary differences in values. Where national security is concerned, the business must bear all the costs of supply chain restructuring with no questions asked, or face possible existential shutdowns.

War broke out in Gaza/Israel In October with a scale of civilian slaughter more horrific and intense than the Ukraine war, which began in February 2022. The latest war count to June 2023 by The Armed Conflict Survey 2023 (1 May 2022–30 June 2023), showed global fatalities and events increasing horrendously by 14% and 28% respectively.

The authoritative Stockholm International Peace and Research Institute (SIPRI) reported that 56 countries were involved in armed conflict in 2022, 5 more than in 2021. Three (Ukraine, Myanmar and Nigeria) involved 10,000 or more estimated deaths, with 16 cases involving 1000–9999 deaths. Expect more conflicts when natural disasters hurt food, water and energy supplies.

As 100,000 or so delegates leave the United Arab Emirates at the end of the COP28 this month, the UN painted an upbeat tone that the Conference marked the “beginning of the end” of the fossil-fuel era.  Scientists confirm that we have already passed the point of being able to limit carbon emissions for the average global temperature to remain below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.   Most studies show that if most governments fail to meet their current commitments to NetZero, the planet will be struggling with temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius, meaning more natural disasters, rising seas and/or migration/conflicts.  Every three weeks, the US has experienced at least one natural disaster costing more than $1 billion in damages.  

As one cynic said, natural disasters are where the rich just pay in money, but the poor pay in their lives.

Putting all these mega-trend micro-disasters together suggests that a mega-system disaster may be on the cards. Historically, these seismic-scale disturbances are settled through a massive recession, like the 1930s Great Depression, or wars, which wipe out debt and make everyone poorer.

So far, the world has neglected to address these looming issues by either denying or postponement - printing more money and incurring more debt. Painkillers do not fix structural imbalances.

As my favourite poet TS Eliot said, the world ends not with a bang, but with a whimper. The world is in permacrises, with no one fully in charge. Democratic governance is in flux when no one can agree on the problems, let alone the solutions.

2024 will see some decisive but messy elections, especially in the US where both Presidential candidates may either be impeached or convicted by then. This cannot auger well for everyone, because 2023 marks the turning point when the US lost the respect of the Global South over its catastrophic handling of Ukraine and Gaza, both of which will be fought to the last Ukrainian or Palestinian. The morality of allowing other people to fight and die for one’s benefit shows not hypocrisy but hegemonic-scale cowardice.

The bottom line is that there is no shortage of technology or money to deal with the global existential threats of climate change and social imbalances. We cannot align policy intent (what politicians say they will do) with the reality that current policies are not delivering.

If man-made or natural calamities are looming, do we mitigate or adapt? On a single planet, we can run but not hide. So each of us must decide to do what we can, rather than relying on politicians to fix themselves, let alone our problems.

There is a wise saying about Christmas charity: give with warm hands. Do that now, or we will be giving with boiled hands or none at all.

Best wishes for 2024.

Andrew Sheng, Asia News Network

 Source link

Goodbye 2023, hello 2024 

Baying for blood, again

Nobody wants to have a war with Iran except Israeli premier Binyamin Netanyahu, so it could still happen.

IF a deeply troubling international situation suddenly looks too good to be true, it usually is just that – and so desperately bad as to need looking good.

And so it is with the positions of the permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) over Israel’s push to attack Iran, a situation that can soon become much more desperate.

China and Russia have long resisted the Israel-United States axis’ efforts to recreate West Asia in its own image, or at least to its own preference. The point was driven home when, under cover of “protecting innocents” through a ceasefire and no-fly zone in Libya last year, Western countries openly attacked government forces.

Now that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya are gone, the only Muslim nation capable of standing up to the axis is Iran. But how to fashion a case against Iran that looks at least half-credible internationally?

On attack mode: If the United States still insists on staying away, without even red lines or deadlines for Iran to conform to, Israel may well go it alone and attack Iran. — EPA

 

Israel, the only nuclear-armed country in the region, does not pretend it has evidence of Iranian plans for nuclear bombs. So its best pretext is that Iran may one day have them, despite Teheran’s repeated assurances that its nuclear energy production and medical research are not a prelude to nuclear armaments.

China and Russia have no desire to see a nuclear-armed Iran either, in fact quite the reverse. Their intelligence services report that there are no grounds to assume that Iran has or even wants to have nuclear weapons.

The conclusion is shared by US and Israeli intelligence, and cited by no less than Israel’s military chief, among others. But that is “only” the pure outlook of professionals and technocrats before getting tweaked by politicians.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seems bent on creating an imploding situation, pushing and pulling to make it want to explode and involve other countries in supporting roles. Chinese and Russian diplomats have consistently kept well clear of it all.

Sensing that Obama’s Washington had lately also been keeping its distance, Netanyahu piled on the pressure for days on end. Then his ultimatum was delivered on Tuesday: that if the US still insists on staying away, without even red lines or deadlines for Iran to conform to, Israel may well go it alone and attack Iran.

And if that happened, Washington could be made to look bad in failing to live up to its God-given mission of protecting the free world. In an election season, those kinds of terms can make a difference, and they did.

News then came the next day that Beijing and Moscow had at last “agreed” to add their weight to Western-Israeli condemnation of Iran’s attitude, if not its actions or policies. That may seem like the hitherto elusive consensus among the UNSC’s permanent five, except that it never was.

After Israel’s quiet ultimatum following long days of hard lobbying, its bottom line finally made Washington scramble – not the fighter jets, but UN diplomats in persuading Beijing and Moscow to swing their support behind an alternative approach pre-empting Israel’s further war cries.

At any rate, the resolution at the IAEA (UN nuclear watchdog) on Thursday would have no binding effect. If diplomatic declarations are mere symbols of policy intentions, then the proposed resolution is the most symbolic of all.

Yet at the most superficial of official levels, Israel also agrees that diplomacy should still be the first option before military action. But there is no denying that Netanyahu is gung-ho on another attack on another Muslim nation, preferably with other countries rather than Israel doing the work.

Walking the tightrope

Iran has no plan or policy for nuclear weapons, much less those weapons themselves. For Netanyahu’s campaign to target Teheran it needed to spread fear and vilification, while official texts could refer only to Iran’s attitude and posturing.

Yet despite all his huffing and puffing, or rather because of them, he is making matters worse for the entire region. Anyone in a less emotional state can see the thin tightrope he is treading.

By seeking to force Iran, a country justly proud of its history and culture, to bow to unreasonable demands, Netanyahu is only making a rebuff from Teheran inevitable. That would in turn force Israel to plummet into war, since it would also not want to lose face.

Then by making clear that the push for war “has to come now” rather than later when Iran may possess nuclear weapons, Netanyahu is confirming to Teheran that nuclear weapons work as a deterrent against foreign attacks. Even if Iran never wanted nuclear weapons before, it would be sorely tempted to seek them now.

One result is that Israeli leaders themselves are divided over an attack on Iran. Its military leaders, President Shimon Peres and Netanyahu’s own Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor (in charge of intelligence and nuclear affairs) are among those who disagree with him on the need to attack Iran.

Meanwhile, a top-level US report bearing the seal of more than 30 retired diplomats, admirals, generals and security chiefs advise that a war with Iran will be more painful and costly than the Iraq and Afghan invasions combined.

Previous estimates had found that an attack on Iran would only delay its nuclear programme by several months. This latest report says that a full-scale attack involving aerial bombardment, ground troops, cyberwarfare and a military occupation, among other requirements, would only delay a nuclear programme by several years, not stop it.

However, the likes of Netanyahu are determined to press on regardless. He seems to have calculated that a US election season can give him an edge by pressuring incumbent Obama to lend him unambiguous support.

Iran may also be hoping that public anxieties in the US over jobs and a faltering economy can, in an election season, constrain the urge of US hawks to join Israel. So far Teheran appears to not want to relent by appeasing the doubters.

Nonetheless, the prospect of war is still closer than anyone other than Netanyahu would wish. There are at least five reasons for this.

First, by pushing the option of a military attack to the maximum, Israeli policymakers would be loath to effect a turnaround short of a major Iranian concession. And that would be highly unlikely.

Second, Netanyahu’s primary aim is not the destruction of Iran but key surgical strikes against suspected nuclear sites. He and his advisers may well see this as “doable”, even though the consequences can easily and quickly become unmanageable.

Third, Iran is likely to retaliate in more ways than one, including through forms of asymmetrical warfare. Israel has launched “spot attacks” on Iraq’s and Syria’s installations before and got away with it, but it has never engaged a country as large and powerful as Iran.

Fourth, an attack by Israel, or jointly by Israel and the US, would immediately invite endless rounds of counter-attacks by militant Muslim groups and individuals around the world. These are just some of the consequences that are not clearly foreseeable or controllable.

Fifth, when push comes to shove, both Democratic and Republican candidates in the US presidential election are likely to side with Israel.

Once Netanyahu as Prime Minister sets the country on a war footing, even the naysayers in his own administration will feel the need to acquiesce in the national decision.

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara