The globalization of the crisis and the geopolitical shift

The globalization of the crisis and the geopolitical shift

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

By Tiberio Graziani

From the globalization of markets to the globalization of the crisis

Following the geopolitical earthquake caused by the collapse of the USSR, the financing process of the world economy has undergone a considerable acceleration, becoming in the space of a few years a structural element of the globalization of markets. From a geoeconomic perspective, this new phenomenon accompanied the attempt to consolidate the western system worldwide under North American leadership. In particular, this phenomenon markedly defined the so-called "unipolar moment."

After an initial success, which benefited the economies and financial circles (banks, credit and insurance institutes) of countries with advanced industrialization, significantly characterized by a high and widespread development of the services sector, the globalization of the markets and the interrelated financing of the economy, suffered between 2007 and 2008, a serious crisis with devastating effects for some areas of the planet. This crisis has revealed the deep contradictions of neoliberalism, already denounced by many authors, including the geoeconomist and geostrategist Luttwak and also the controversial American businessman and financier George Soros. The crisis, which exactly manifested itself in its most pernicious and unique features in the United States, that is, in the center of the western geopolitical system, successively broke out in its peripheral areas (Europe and Japan), and then spread throughout the planet. It is well known that the crisis has severely affected some southern European countries, which already had specific structural weaknesses, both in the political and economic spheres. The scarce and in some cases null reaction capacities offered by these countries to the initial American contagion (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain) must be located not only in their systemic weaknesses, but also in the diminished possibility of intervening in the monetary sector and financial; This last limiting factor is a direct consequence of the deficit of monetary sovereignty that these countries present, whose origin, as is well known, is the consequence of their accession to the eurozone and the reduced bargaining power at the European and Euro-Atlantic level.

The dissipation of the crisis and the new geopolitical blocs

Almost five years after its outbreak and since the beginning of its "dissipation" due to its spread to other geoeconomic contexts, the crisis has not yet ended. With much likelihood, the globalization process of the crisis seems to be destined to be incomplete and, therefore, confined mainly to the core of the western geopolitical system, this is due to the dynamics that emerged as a result of the appearance of new protagonists in the global picture. In fact, during this brief period of time, some countries, until recently considered as emerging, such as Brazil, India, China and South Africa (BRICS), have been acquiring an ever greater global importance, polarizing economic, financial and political interest of the other nations in some segments of the planet. The BRICS countries as a whole have also established, in some way, although not their own on a global scale, a favorable climate for the formation of other new aggregates, such as the Eurasian Customs Union and UNASUR, which has contributed that the leaders of the main Eurasian countries (China, India, Kazakhstan, Russia) and Latin America (Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile) have become aware of the geopolitical mutation in action. The spread of the new “multipolarist” mentality has generated some innovative initiatives, destined to play a decisive role in shaping the new world order, either at the level of unprecedented alliances and unusual strategic partnerships (some of which already well advanced), either in the economic-financial field. It is from this context that proposals and initiatives arising outside of the usual forums (G8 or G20) or international decision-making centers (World Bank, International Monetary Fund) can be observed and evaluated, such as, for example, the institution of a Bank. BRICS, which (for the moment) pursues the objective of co-financing large infrastructural projects that will serve to modernize almost a third of the planet. On the other hand, it is necessary to analyze in this same context the "Western" attempts that seek to maintain world primacy in this particular phase of financial and political crisis. Among the efforts of the Western system that aspires to overcome the crisis through its globalization or dissipation in other geoeconomic segments, there are at least two that are of particular interest to the analyst, since they are pointed out or re-pointed out by decision of the EE. .UU., That is, on the part of the decisional center of the "West" and, above all, because they rest in two strategic areas for the economic and geopolitical projection of Washington. These efforts have to do with Europe and the Pacific. We refer to the project for the constitution of a large transatlantic market, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership- (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Trans Pacific Partnership TPP).

The bilateral option and "multipolar neomultilateralism" to overcome the crisis

The geopolitical change in action, that is, the uni-multipolar transition, seems to be proceeding towards the stabilization of the new actors, either in each of their national dimensions or in their aggregations. This consolidation offers peripheral countries in relation to the western system, that is, those that suffer the most from the effects of the economic, monetary and financial crisis, the opportunity to direct new forms of cooperation with the future protagonists of the new multipolar order.

The peripheral countries, including Italy, should initially favor the bilateral option with the aim of recovering an international “physiognomy” that allows them to increase their own levels of freedom in the international arena and, consequently, achieve greater power. negotiation. However, with the geopolitical shift towards new and diverse poles of aggregation, the modality of the bilateral option will have to be introduced in the sphere of what we could now define with an unprecedented phrase such as that of "multipolar neo-multilateralism".

Translation of V. Paglione


Video: Covid-19: why travel will never be the same. The Economist (July 2022).


  1. Tse

    This admirable phrase has to be purposely

  2. Kale

    I apologize that I am interrupting you.

  3. Nizam

    The authoritative point of view, it is tempting

  4. Bressal

    Well done, this idea is just about

  5. Adniel

    the Competent point of view, cognitively.

Write a message