September 11, 2001 is one of the few days in history that remains etched in the memory of a whole generation on a global scale. On the other hand, few will remember two other days of the same year during which, a few hours apart, events took place which generated enormous consequences. Twenty years ago, on December 11, 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO); On December 13, the George Bush administration announced its decision to withdraw from the Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. These two events triggered dynamics that deeply mark the world today.

“China’s integration into the global economic system has been a monumental development, with far-reaching consequences both for China itself and for the rest of the world,” said Mikko Huotari, executive director of the ‘Mercator Institute for Chinese Studies, during a telephone conversation. So important that they are at the heart of today’s power balances and some of the sharpest strategic frictions.

In very synthetic terms, we can see that in these 20 years, China has gone from the world’s sixth economy to the second; its GDP increased eleven-fold, while foreign direct investment quadrupled, according to Bloomberg data. Their foreign trade has increased ninefold and multitudes of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty. Joining the WTO played a very important role in this spectacular progress.

In the rest of the world, consumers have benefited from cheaper products thanks to the manufacturing power of the Asian giant; and companies in developed countries are improving their penetration in this market, in some cases with considerable benefits. But, at the same time, millions of manufacturing jobs have vanished in the West; China has pursued highly questionable technology transfer policies and injected huge subsidies into strategic industrial sectors, creating a controversial competitive gap.

“Overall, China is a WTO member that has largely honored its commitments,” Huotari said. “Overall, there is a positive outcome in its integration. However, there are big butes. China has not changed as expected. And the WTO system has some fragile aspects. Among the weak points are the issues of subsidies or intellectual property. Another thorny issue is that of tendering. All of this has generated market distortions which are the challenge we face now, ”he says.

From the trade war Trump unleashed to the EU’s efforts to seal a new investment treaty, these frictions are at the very heart of the current world order. The tension is high, the interests immeasurable, and some speak of a new cold war. But there is a substantial substantial difference with the Iron Curtain, which lies precisely in this: the absolute economic entanglement between the West and China, something which did not take place with the USSR.

Join MRT to follow all the news and read without limits.

Subscribe

There are politicians and analysts who think it was a mistake to let China in so early and without better guarantees; but, at this stage, few defend the idea of ​​a radical decoupling. In fact, in the midst of supply chain difficulties, companies are trying to reduce their dependence and improve their resilience, but they are not doing this by doing without Chinese manufacturing, but by adding other avenues to it. prudent supply.

Military relations

The withdrawal of the United States from the ABM Treaty is a development with very different characteristics. It did not have a direct impact on the lives of many consumers and workers, but it also had far-reaching consequences that changed the course of military relations, which is strongly perceived today.

“This has brought about some very significant changes. Since then, a whole series of weapon systems designed to overcome anti-missile defenses have been developed, ”explains, also in a telephone conversation, Petr Topychkanow, an expert researcher on the subject at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ( Sipri).

ABM was a treaty between the United States and Russia that limited the number of ballistic defense locations, the number of interceptors, and a host of development activities in this area. It was signed in 1972, and the logic was that, with limited defenses, the incentive for an arms race would be reduced. The more defense there is, the more it must be bypassed in order to maintain a dissuasive power. If the defense is limited, the desire to amass weapons is less.

“We live in a different world,” Bush said in 2001 when he announced his decision. “I have come to the conclusion that this treaty compromises our government’s ability to defend our citizens against future missile attacks by rogue or terrorist states. I cannot allow an agreement to limit our defense effectiveness ”, he declared, assuring that the action was not directed against Russia.

They didn’t take it that way in Moscow. Putin has repeatedly stressed that it was this move that prompted him to invest vigorously in a new generation of weapons that could bypass advances in Washington’s interception capabilities. After a speech to the Russian Parliament in 2018, in which he referred to a series of important developments in the field of arms, Vladimir Putin said: “From my point of view, those who talk about the outbreak of a new cold war do not are not analysts, they do propaganda. If, on the other hand, there is talk of an arms race, it started when the United States withdrew from the ABM treaty ”.

“The point is that the consequences of this decision have transcended the bilateral Washington-Moscow relationship. Not only did the Kremlin react by developing a whole series of weapons. Beijing, too, has observed all of this and has taken note of it. China was not part of the pact, but the existence of these limits on the two great military powers of the time marked its strategic calculation. Once the limit disappeared, Beijing readjusted its calculation ”. In this perspective too, we can read the recent experiences with highly developed hypersonic weapons, or the Pentagon reports which point to the Chinese intention to strongly strengthen its nuclear arsenal.

Looking back, the great vectors of our multipolar world, unstable, aggressively competitive, and unleashed by effective institutions and regulations that trap it, have two of their most important roots in the first two days of 20 years ago. year.

Follow all the international information on Facebook Yes Twitter, o fr our weekly newsletter.