Deep Seek and Light Trump: the new globalism

 Artificial Intelligence, the competition between the great powers and Trump's disorientation

Victor Angelo

As in previous weeks, the week began with a big surprise, this time coming from China. It was the emergence of a new version in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), an efficient and incredibly cheap Chinese program, competing at the highest level with the very expensive solutions coming from the USA. It came up with the name DeepSeek and is ready to give an instant response in a variety of languages. The news, which in just a few hours caused American and European technology companies to lose hundreds of billions of dollars in the capital markets, brought with it two major messages.

The first is about money, showing that it is possible to successfully invest in AI without spending the fabulous sums that large North American multinationals have been spending. The Chinese experience seems to show that the capitalization of Western competitors is more related to stock speculation than to real financing needs. They are true incubators of billionaires. The value of shares listed on the NASDAQ in New York or on certain European stock exchanges has much more to do with capitalist greed than with the scientific and business costs of large technology corporations based in California and one or another European location.

This observation regarding costs brings to mind what comes to us from Ukraine: the country's armed forces are using AI on a large scale, transforming classic equipment into digitally operated weapons. They are thus able, with modest expenditure, to go far and strike hard, almost compensating for their lack of weapons when faced with a much more powerful aggressor, and thus obtain unbelievable results. For the avoidance of doubt, I will immediately add that Ukraine is doing what it can with domestic science, but it continues to urgently need massive assistance in terms of air defense, artillery, ammunition, missiles and aircraft, and much more material available in the Western countries, but delivered with a half-closed hand and a short and timid arm, so as not to irritate excessively the delinquent who lives in the Kremlin.

The second message we get from China is that the country is much more advanced in terms of AI than Americans and Europeans think. American supremacy shook a lot this week. We do not have concrete data on this subject, but we already know two things: on the one hand, that Beijing considers the issue a top priority; and that President Xi Jinping argues that whoever wins the digital race will be the strongest global power in the future. This is one of the reasons why he is betting on the forced annexation of Taiwan, a territory that has a cutting-edge industry in terms of the production of nanochips, which are essential for top AI performance. The other reason for Beijing's high interest in Taiwan stems from a mix of ultranationalism and imperial, geopolitical ambition. Xi is fortunate that President Donald Trump confused, as happened this week in one of his verbal slips, Taiwan as an extension of the People's Republic of China. The same Trump who also seems unaware that Taiwan has around 65 billion dollars invested in the US in the area of ​​cyber technologies.

And so we entered the second week of the Trump administration. In addition to the flood of measures he set in motion, the carriage's progress confirms what was already feared.

Domestically, his first executive orders are potentially disastrous for the country's economy and social stability. They will accentuate internal fractures and could provoke serious political unrest.

On the international scene, it can be predicted that we will see the collapse of the multilateral system. WHO appeared as a first target, for reasons of competition with China, and for no other reason. China could be, and most likely will be, the main beneficiary of the Trump Administration's fury against UN organizations. NATO itself could also be the target of this furor against the international system. It will not be destroyed by Trump's wrath, but it could face moments of great turbulence in the face of the impositions and contradictions invented in Washington.

Still on the subject of foreign policy, Trump will limit himself to dealing with Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, both wanted by international justice, with Xi Jinping and with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, an expert in the dismemberment of journalists. And perhaps also with the exotic, crazy and murderous Kim Jong-un. Netanyahu will be in Washington next week as the first official guest. As for Europe, Trump will want to see on the map not a European Union or valuable allies, but a scattering of countries that he thinks have already passed into history.

New era, new questions

Have the big questions changed because of Covid-19? What are the essential questions we all face today? Is there a new ranking in terms of global priorities? Do we see global threats differently? Can we keep trying to respond to shared problems through nation-based measures? Are we asking ourselves the right questions?

Five fundamental questions

As I see it, there are five big questions on our European table. One, how to strike the balance between public health and the health of the economy? Two, what role should each State play and what are the limits the governments should not overstep? Three, what kind of societal changes should be promoted for a better type of human society in the post-Covid era? Four, what about the implications of this extraordinary crisis on the future of the European Union? And five, what will be the new shape of globalisation?

These are the key lines of reflection as we look ahead. The debate about each one of them is open. It is a complex one but must be conducted. The depth of the current crisis calls for a complete review of the way we have been doing business. Those who think that we just have to press the recovery button, and everything will be back to what we had in January are wrong. We are not going back.

New forms of democracy

Some theoreticians keep saying, as they love to repeat one another, that “we live in a post-democratic world”. I disagree. Democracy is alive in many parts of our planet. The only real point is that the way it is expressed and exercised is changing fast. We live in a globalised world. National borders have lost their meaning when the issues are of a greater import. Therefore, this is a time when decisions taken within national borders must be harmonised with decisions taken by others. It is not a loss of national sovereignty or a way of undermining the democratic institutions in each country. It is simply because many issues do require a transnational response. And that’s why it is important to safeguard the authority of the multilateral organisations. Part of the democratic practise means then to be able to reach consensus.

Day 13 for the Yellow Vests

Today it was the 13^th Saturday with Yellow Vest demonstrators in Paris and other French cities.

It’s obvious the movement is still able to gather a good number of people. We can say so even if the total number of protesters today was smaller than in past weeks. The variety of reasons that bring the activists to the streets explains the numbers.

This is not a rally of dunces, as some would like us to see it. There are extremists in the ranks – militants from the far-right and from the far-left. They are trying to ride the social malaise. And they feel happy when they see cars burning or the State authority being challenged. But the majority of those on the streets is composed of people that face daily hardships and want to benefit from a safer economic environment. They are simple people, and they raise the key question about how to organise the society in developed nations at a time of big digital transformations, combined with international economic competition and the emergence of masses of skilled workers in other parts of the world.

Yellow vests: the key question

Everything we write and read about the root causes of the Yellow Vests movement is based on political and sociological speculation. We should be clear about it.

We know that the high cost of living, the permanent state of fatigue that comes from suburban life, the ever-increasing tax burden and the many forms of resentment against the professional politicians play an important role in the mobilisation. There is bitterness and anger towards the urban elites and the globalist crusaders. These are the key, most immediate reasons for the demonstrations.

We also know that these areas of misgivings and rebellion combine themselves into a complex social malaise.

But are we witnessing something larger and deeper than what meets the idea? Something transformative? That’s the very question that must be answered to.

On the Yellow Vests

The French Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) have now demonstrated every Saturday since mid-November. Yesterday it was their 12^th Saturday of mass rallies in Paris and other cities and towns of France. We cannot ignore the meaning and the political dimensions of such a movement. It must be better understood, first. Then, we should reflect about the response that should be provided.

I get the impression that both questions – understanding and responding – have not been fully considered.

Many words have been written about the grievances, but they do not explain the persistence of the street protests. Moreover, in winter, which is not the best season to be on the street and public squares. The analysis of the root causes calls for more objectivity and less ideological explanations.

The response the government has adopted is two-pronged: massive police presence during the manifestations, to prevent violence and looting; and the launching of a campaign of national dialogue, to look at issues of taxation, State organisation and political representativeness, as well as climate policies. But both lines of the response are being challenged. They have not convinced a good deal of those complaining, even among those who do not come to the streets on Saturday. 

The matter needs therefore a much more comprehensive assessment. It’s very much on the table.  

Davos 2019: power and planes

Davos 2019 is now underway.

Davos is the annual high mass on globalization and power. This year’s headline is about the absence of key political leaders. The big names – Trump, Xi, Putin, Modi, Merkel, Macron, May – are not attending. They have more pressing matters to address at their respective home fronts. Even second line political leaders are not many this time. Bad omen for the organisers: Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil is the star at the opening.

Almost 50 years down the line, since the first meeting, the World Economic Forum is at risk of becoming no more than a networking venue for major corporate leaders, friendly NGOs heads, and plenty of star media people. Also, one high-visibility opportunity for the elites that love to be seen attending seminars and participating in panel discussions on global themes. Boring as such talks can be, and abstract, so many times, they pretend to identify the key challenges of the day and come up with new solutions. That sounds great and visionary.

But it is not just the question of the elitist image, of powerful people deeply disconnected from the realities of the ordinary citizen meeting on the rocks of Davos. It’s also that nowadays there are many competing initiatives, dozens of conferences in many places that debate the same issues and come to similar conclusions.

Maybe the only true difference is related to private planes. In Davos this year, they expect around 1,500 of them. That’s the ultimate symbol of power. The private plane.

Travelling

On travel to faraway lands, as of today and for a good week. Well, the point is to keep the eyes wide-open and learn as much as possible. Withdrawal and fighting globalisation are now top on many politicians´agendas.

These issues bring votes. But do not open a better future. And do not bring peace and tranquility. The problems have no borders, as the international mass, uncontrolled migrations and the Zika epidemic show. We might talk about building walls but there is always a way around them.

Better face the issues up-front.  

The EU against Google: prudence, please

The European Commission´s case against Google does not sound entirely right. Google is an extremely innovative high tech company and that has allowed it to gain a greater share of the mobile devices market. Its operating systems are indeed all over the place. It means that Google is winning the competition race. But that does not prevent other manufacturers from entering the market. Some are already around and have managed to attract consumers’ attention.

Any antitrust action taken by the Commission needs to take into account the realities of market forces, particularly in a sector that requires huge investments in terms of development and research. It cannot be just a bureaucratic approach to commercial and engineering successes. In addition, it shouldn´t give room for any interpretation that could be read as disguised hostility towards large American multinational companies. 

Back from India

I am just back from a journey through Rajasthan combined with a short visit to Delhi. This was my second trip to India. The first one took place in a different era, some nineteen years ago. Today´s India is a much better place, very dynamic and deeply optimistic about its future. Beyond that it remains a fascinating place. And it is certainly an extraordinary friendly place for people coming from my part of the world. 

All that makes a trip to India something bigger than just a tourist´s undertaking. If one looks at it with a deeper insight, it is in many ways a spiritual journey. And a learning one as well, as long as we want to keep our eyes open and see beyond the limits of our own prejudices. 

Quick note on Davos 2016

Davos 2016 is now completed. The last footprints on the snow are just disappearing. But the intellectual and political footprints that marked four days of discussions will remain for a good while. We can say a lot of bad things about Davos and its crowds. But we have also to recognise that the annual meetings offer a special opportunity to reflect about the present and the future. Some of the best minds engage in the debates. And that´s the big plus of the Davos initiative.

There are many take-home ideas that came out of the many sessions, dialogues and presentations. I would like to refer to three of them.

First, today´s world faces a good deal of simultaneous crises. This combination of very profound challenges carries a new level of risks, an unprecedented hodgepodge of perils. 

Second, the nations and the international institutions are not prepared to respond to the complexities. That makes everything much more dangerous and unpredictable. It also contributes in a very big way to the discredit of leaders and the international system, including the UN.

Third, we can expect a very serious increase of the inequalities. As we move into more sophisticated forms of production and economic activity, the income and wealth differences will increase. On one side, we will see those who can take advantage of the new technologies and of the global system of exchanges. On the other, there will masses of individuals and families left behind. Power and fragility will be the sides of the future. And we can expect that people will not be ready to accept it with just a smile.

A new approach to politics

The positive response many Europeans are giving to the mass influx of would-be refugees might have many ways of being understood. For me, it underlines an emerging widespread aspiration to see human values guiding political decisions. People are telling their leaders that basic principles of humanity matter above everything else when the crisis is too big and the suffering too high.

In many ways politics in our part of the world lost touch with the lives of the poorest and weakest segments of society. We got used to believe that economic growth, combined with a good degree of political expediency and a fair dose of opportunism, would give everyone a chance to make a living. 

In addition, we have accepted globalization on the material fronts but not on matters that might compromise our standards of living. We keep asking every nation to open their borders as we try to keep our own frontiers well protected. And we don´t mind to give some help to those in need as long as that happens far away from our doorsteps.

Now, here in Europe, that way of looking at the world might be about to be challenged. Ideology is getting back into politics. And the ideas that are about to shape our future political views are above all about being more reasonable and more open to others. It´s a new kind of responsive politics.

Respect the national choices and you have peace

Ukraine should be able to decide about its own future. That´s the basic rule when it comes to national sovereignty. And sovereignty is still a basic tenet in terms of defining the relations between states. Even in out interdependent world, even in a more integrated Europe, sovereignty is, in the end, the fundamental pillar of any nation. 

An Indian face in Europe´s politics

The Portuguese Socialist Party has a new leader: António Costa, the current mayor of Lisbon. On Sunday he won the party´s nomination by an overwhelming majority of the votes. He was running against the outgoing Secretary-General of the party, António José Seguro, and received the support of more than two-thirds of the voters. The mandate is clear. And the level of hope invested on him as well.

On the father´s side, António Costa has his family roots in Goa, India. His election places him in a very good position to be the next Prime-minister of Portugal, by next year´s autumn. To have a Prime-minister that is of Indian origin shows how much Portugal and Europe´s ethnicity mix has changed and keeps changing. This is the new Europe, built on old nations and new immigrants. This is also a Europe that has to adjust to a more globalised world.

In my opinion it is good news to open up. We Europeans need to have a much broader view of ourselves and of our position in the affairs of the world. It is not just about being more tolerant. It is also about getting a better grasp about the world´s diversity and how to insert ourselves in an international reality that has changed and will continue to change at a very high speed. 

The ways of the Cold War II

This year´s edition of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, an annual event that aims at bringing together the Chief Executive Officers (CEO) of major world corporations, started last night with a grandiose nine-course banquet. This is an important event that the current state of affairs between Russia and the West has made even more significant. Therefore, the fact that seven of 12 key participants from the US have decided to cancel their participation cannot be ignored. For the US, more in their case than for the Europeans, the severing of as many economic relations with Russia as possible is the key response to President Putin´s policies towards Ukraine. This approach is considered in Washington as the best and most impactful way of undermining Russia. The new face of our modern day “Cold War” is above all about economic muscle and financial measures.  

May Day 2014

On this May Day, my point is very simple. It is about labour in a global world economy. Leaders should make globalization, which is an inescapable feature of present times, a positive factor for progress and transformation. They should not exploit the fears linked to globalization and use it as a flag to win votes from the working class. Globalization opens opportunities and it should be taken advantage of. People should be prepared and skills should be developed for a world without too many trade barriers. And EU should be at the vanguard of such an approach. 

The radical right is on the offensive

Globalisation and international migrations tend to generate the impression, in the EU public opinion, that that the world out there has become a threat to our standard of living, our jobs, culture and values.  Protectionist ideas are easily gaining ground and can become the extremist banner behind which people could rally. In many ways, both ends of extremist political spectrum can make use of these fears. But it is above all an easy ride for the radical right. They are the ones that can gain more from the exploitation of such feelings. And that explains in no small measure the advances of the right wingers in many parts of the European Continent. And we can expect more of it as well.

Globalization needs public debate

As the discussions on a free trade agreement with the US get – painfully – off the ground, I notice growing opposition in many segments of the EU public opinion against anything that might look like opening new doors to globalization. It is not just the workers’ movements, or the small entrepreneurs, or people from the left or the centre-left. The opposition also comes from heads of larger firms and others that know the world and have very much benefitted from the opening of the borders. It is also now the key feature within the nationalist groups.

The debate about globalization has lost objectivity. Everything is now about fears, vested interests, and protection from outside competition.  Those who should explain the advantages of a more open world market and how to operate in tomorrow’s global economy have preferred to remain silent. To do so is to give space to all kinds of populist views and to encourage retrograde politics to take over. It is, in my opinion, a dangerous withdrawal.