Biteback Publishing , 2021

By Brian Boyd

This is the third of a three-part series

Peaceful Competition

In his final chapters Letwin promotes simply that “peaceful competition” between the economically competing major powers, especially between the US and China, is the only way forward.

But Letwin is not naïve, saying serious realistic strategies to reconstruct the international economic system will not be easy to design. He admits what is needed is not piecemeal reform but a significant paradigm shift.                                                                                  

A new ‘enterprise internationalism’ will require a global approach led by the world’s twenty largest economies that “does not require the twenty member states to sign up to any specific Western or Eastern view of systems of governance…”.                                                                    

“Within this context, it would be possible to imagine… further changes in the world economic order”. But, admits Letwin, that to suppress the latent causes of global conflict, the US and China will need to lead the world in drawing up a new globally based –  ‘no unauthorised first strike agreement’.

Letwin acknowledges the difficulties involved in developing a new framework for peaceful competition within the global economy, while at the same time taking the necessary political steps to minimise the risk of war.

Currently the narrative of the hawks is that the US sphere of influence should not surrender US global economic dominance. Conversely the Chinese government is insisting that China’s growing economic might has a legitimate and expanding role to play in the world economy.

Summary

Oliver Letwin’s dissertation is an important contribution to the badly needed public conversation needed in Australia about great power rivalry, the resulting arms race and the threat to world peace. By focusing on the intensifying economic basis of growing world tensions, it cuts through much of the hyped narrative, which promotes it is essentially all about security and military threats. The military posturing of recent years is, instead a consequence, about maintaining, shoring up and even expanding the economic spheres of influence, of all the respective power blocs. The tension between the US and China is of particular relevance to Australia.

The hardline narrative coming out of Washington and supported by key parts of the political and intelligence community in Canberra, insists that Australia should be prepared to go to war with the United States in any flashpoint where its ‘sphere of influence’ is being challenged.                                                                     

This does not mean that Australia should accept that China can get away with economic malpractice and military activity in its desire to have its own defined ‘sphere of influence’, as its economy modernises and grows.

Similarly, Russian acts of war and the military posturing and economic exploitation by the EU and Britain, should all be opposed and exposed.

The great power blocs, regardless of their different shades of political and economic constituency, have no right to continually engineer flashpoints that threaten world peace. The public will campaign for peace, especially when they know any conflicts, any war preparations are essentially about the ECONOMIC agendas of multinationals, state based enterprises, oligarchs and corporate boardrooms.