Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
The Dalai Lama is coming to America. Will Biden meet him?
His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso arrives in the United States on June 20 for surgery – his first trip outside India since 2018. The spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists is reportedly having a procedure on his knees, but his visit compounds the delicate choices now facing the White House.
Joe Biden made a campaign promise to meet with the Dalai Lama, and with just months remaining in his first term, this might be the only good chance he gets. That said, the president is in the midst of a delicate stabilization process with China, which conquered Tibet in 1950 and forced the Dalai Lama to flee to India in 1959. Beijing has long considered the Dalai Lama a threat to the regime and has attempted to punish countries that give him an audience.
“A meeting between Biden and his Holiness, under any circumstance, would be seen as violating a diplomatic taboo by Beijing,” says Dominic Chiu, senior analyst at Eurasia Group.
“The current communication channels and working groups established between Beijing and Washington to manage bilateral relations would be completely ineffective in managing such a scenario.”
Biden, in other words, might be wise to give the Dalai Lama a wide berth.
10 images that captured 2023
With 2023 in our rearview mirror, here are some of the images that defined the tumultuous year: from Fulton County, Georgia to Gaza City,
Feb. 5: Spy Balloon Downed
Credit: Sipa USA via Reuters
Sailors assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group 2 recover a Chinese high-altitude surveillance balloon off the coast of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Feb. 5, 2023.
Feb. 10: Earthquake shakes Turkey and Syria
Credit: Umit Bektas/Reuters
An aerial view shows damaged and collapsed buildings in the aftermath of a deadly earthquake in Hatay, Turkey February 10, 2023.
March 23: France protests pension changes
Credit: Alain Pitton/NurPhoto via Reuters
Riot policemen stands amid clouds of tear gas as more than 70,000 people protest in Toulouse against French President Emmanuel Macron’s attempt to raise the national retirement age and change pension benefits. March 23th 2023.
May 6: King Charles III coronated
Credit: Stefan Rousseau/Pool via REUTERS
King Charles III waves as he leaves the balcony of Buckingham Palace, London, following his coronation, May 6, 2023.
Jun. 7: Canadian wildfires
Credit: REUTERS/Andrew Kelly
People ride bicycles at 6th Avenue as haze and smoke caused by wildfires in Canada blanket New York City, New York, U.S., June 7, 2023.
Aug. 24: Trump mugshot
Credit: Reuters
Former U.S. President Donald Trump in a police booking mugshot released by the Fulton County Sheriff's Office, August 24, 2023.
Sept. 25: Milei’s chainsaw
Credit: REUTERS/Cristina Sille
Argentine presidential candidate Javier Milei holds a chainsaw next to Carolina Piparo, candidate for Governor of the Province of Buenos Aires, during a campaign rally, in Buenos Aires, Argentina September 25, 2023.
Oct. 7: Noa Argamani kidnapped
Nova music festival attendee Noa Argamani reaches out to her boyfriend, Avinatan Or, as they are kidnapped by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7, 2023.
Oct. 9: Gaza’s children bombed
Credit: IMAGO/Medhat Hajjaj/apaimages via Reuters
A child at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City rests after surgery, having been wounded in an Israeli attack. October 9, 2023.
Oct 23: Afghanistan's historic Cricket World Cup win
Credit: ANI via Reuters
Hashmatullah Shahidi celebrates Afghanistan's victory against Pakistan. Oct 23, 2023
What will 2024 bring? Make sure to subscribe to the GZERO Daily newsletter to keep up.
When Biden met Xi (and what's going on with the US and China) | TED
Better or Worse? What happened when two frenemies -- China's President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden -- met at the APEC Summit in San Francisco? Did the two superpowers move closer to conflict or actually get something positive done? What will make a difference? Ian Bremmer was in San Francisco and took in the big event, and he sits down for an exclusive conversation with GZERO's new partner, TED, to explain what it all means.
Want more of Ian Bremmer’s thoughts and insights on geopolitics? SUBSCRIBE to his FREE daily newsletter.
Every day, GZERO gives you exclusive content, more Ian videos, Ian’s own Wednesday newsletter, and lots more. Subscribe now and join Ian’s GZERO community.
And follow GZERO on:
US and China nearly collide amid communication breakdown
What we've got here is a failure to communicate ... and it's already resulted in at least one close call. US military officials this week said that an American spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet nearly collided over the South China Sea last week. The US plane was flying in international airspace, and a Chinese J-16 fighter cut in front of its nose, forcing it to fly through the jet's wake. The Pentagon called it an “unnecessarily aggressive maneuver”; Beijing said the spy plane "intruded" its territory.
The rub? Communication between the two nations has eroded to alarming levels in recent months. Since the US shot down a Chinese spy balloon in February — with Secretary of State Antony Blinken canceling a trip to meet his Chinese counterpart at the time — engagement levels have been low. Blinken has tried without success to reschedule the trip, and China recently rebuffed Washington’s invitation for both countries' defense chiefs to meet on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Security Dialogue in Singapore this week. This is likely in response to Washington's refusal to lift sanctions imposed on their Defense Minister Li Shangfu for his role in assisting the transfer of fighter jets and missile systems to Russia.
“China has a history of freezing bilateral communications channels in response to crises, one rationale for which is a view that dialogue is incompatible with deterrence,” says Eurasia Group China analyst Anna Ashton.
But a lack of open communication raises risks of misunderstandings spiraling into crises. We'll be watching to see whether US and Chinese officials can reopen channels of communication and avert future such mishaps.
China's spy balloon chills relations with US
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and I'm at Columbia University, just about to teach my class. I just got back to New York and a Quick Take to kick off your week.
Of course, what we're talking about right now is the balloon, which was made for television. I mean, you know, you get to watch on the map as it's traveling across the country and check the popularity ratings. Democrats, Republicans, what do you think about the balloon? The reality is this is not going to be talked about in another week, but it is inconvenient, the timing for a few different reasons. First of all, because you have the State of the Union coming up tomorrow. And as a consequence, President Biden is going to have to address it in a very public way, and therefore it puts more of a chill in US-China relations.
Secondly, it came right before Secretary of State Blinken's planned trip to Beijing that was going to include unusually a meeting directly with Xi Jinping. That's something that both Biden and Xi really wanted to get done. And now it has been postponed, frankly, without a date, at least in the near-term future, that it is going to be reset for.
And then finally, because the Chinese have been trying to engage in a charm offensive, certainly since ending the zero-COVID policy, making it an everyone-gets-COVID policy and wanting to show stronger Chinese growth, meaning opening up. And that means talking about reopening the economy, trying to ensure that people in the international markets, investments, are feeling more comfortable doing business with China. This puts a chill on all of that in the context and against the backdrop of what has been some challenging US-China politics.
For example, secondary sanctions against the Chinese company in the last week for doing business with the Wagner Group in Russia. Investigative work that has shown the Chinese have been sending more military equipment, related equipment, not direct arms and materiel, but spare parts, jamming equipment and the like that has helped the Russians with the war in Ukraine, something that the Chinese had been very wary to do in the initial months. Looks like they may be loosening there, and the Americans aren't happy about that.
And then, of course, you have the continued politics around things like Taiwan, the potential for direct confrontation there. You've got further export controls on semiconductors. It doesn't feel like it's a very happy relationship right now. And yet, President Biden and President Xi both want to put a floor under that relationship. They want it to be more stable than it's been, in part because the American private sector that spends a lot of money in lobbying for policies want to continue to do business with the Chinese, and in part because all American allies want tighter security with the US but they also want to continue to have large amounts of economic exposure to China.
Are there any lessons that are learned from here? Well, one is that China makes mistakes. This was clearly a mistake. Yes, there have been other incidents of balloons cutting across the United States for smaller amounts of time during the Trump administration. Apparently, Trump was not aware. The US was not aware of it at the time. Maybe Xi Jinping thought he could get away with this much larger balloon over the course of several days. He was badly advised. Some heads probably rolling internally in defense over in China.
Secondarily. Biden himself is constrained when this stuff gets public. We saw it before with Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan. Biden had been trying to stop Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker, from making that trip. It got public, the trip got leaked, and then suddenly Democrats and Republicans are all in the crossfire of, "You can't look weak, you can't look weak on China." As a consequence, Biden had to back off, support the trip. And then you saw military escalation from the Chinese as a consequence. That's exactly what happened here.
Before the public knew about this balloon, Biden was still very much planning on sending Blinken to China and to meet with Xi Jinping. Biden knew about the balloon. The White House knew. The public didn't and as a consequence, Biden said, "I can still send the secretary of state." As soon as it became public. He had to back off. He also had to shoot the thing down, which, frankly, I suspect he wasn't going to do right before a Blinken trip if it hadn't made it into the public.
In other words, the reality of polarization in the US political system and the performative nature of, "we've got to take these guys on," can undermine US national security interests and can make escalation more likely between the two most powerful countries in the world.
- Biden and Xi’s Bali face-off: Agenda, forecast, and sticking points ›
- What We're Watching: US military in the Philippines, Ecuadorian referendum, Israel's AG vs. Bibi, Ukraine shows EU anti-corruption love, China's snoop balloon ›
- What We're Watching: US-China balloon fallout, Iranian "amnesty" ›
- Lessons from “balloon-gate” - GZERO Media ›
- Canada is "eyes wide open" on China, says defense minister - GZERO Media ›
No, Ukraine is not like Taiwan. Here’s why.
Over the weekend, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough tweeted the following, urging the Biden administration to stand up for Ukraine more forcefully lest timidity against Russia embolden China to invade Taiwan:
This sentiment has been echoed by many in recent days. A muted response to another Russian invasion of Ukraine, the argument goes, will cause Beijing to second-guess America’s commitment to defend Taiwan.
The former supreme allied commander of NATO, retired Adm. James Stavridis, warns that US actions to defend Ukraine “will inform [China’s] calculus regarding Taiwan.” Famed political scientist Francis Fukuyama writes that “the Chinese are watching how the West responds in this crisis very closely, as they calculate their prospects for reincorporating Taiwan.” The top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), says that “U.S. credibility from Kyiv to Taipei cannot withstand” the US making “concessions at the expense of our strategic partner Ukraine in response to the Putin regime’s provocative military buildup.” Even Democrats like Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) believe that a measured response to Russian aggression could lead China to conclude that it could get away with attacking Taiwan without facing strong resistance from the West.
I disagree.
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
The US not coming to Ukraine’s direct military aid will not embolden China to invade Taiwan. Here’s why.
Reasoning from a bad analogy
Ukraine and Taiwan are often put in the same boat, and sure enough they are similar in some respects.
There is, of course, a parallel between Putin claiming Ukrainians and Russians are “one people” and Beijing claiming sovereignty over Taiwan under the “One China” principle. Both Ukraine and Taiwan are first-order national security priorities for Russia and China, enshrined in national mythology and identity as indivisible parts of their respective territories. Russia sees the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO as an existential security threat, and China views Taiwanese independence and alignment with the West in a similar light. Both global powers would like to annex these “breakaway regions.”
Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin in 2014.(Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images)
But that’s where the comparison ends. The differences between the two contested hotspots far outweigh the similarities.
For starters, Taiwan (and the broader Indo-Pacific region) is a vital national interest for the US while Ukraine is at best a secondary one. Specifically, Taiwan is an advanced industrial nation with a strong democracy, close economic and diplomatic relations with the West, critical semiconductor production capabilities, and a key role in Washington’s Asian alliance system. As Assistant Defense Secretary Ely Ratner testified recently, Taiwan’s role in “anchoring a network of U.S. allies and partners […] that is critical to the region’s security and critical to the defense of vital U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific.” Meanwhile, Ukraine has weak political institutions with deeply entrenched corruption and limited military and economic value to either the US or Europe—so much so that it wouldn’t be a desirable candidate for NATO (or EU) membership even if Russia was in favor.
These differences in strategic importance help explain why America maintains a deliberate policy of “strategic ambiguity” toward Taiwan but not toward Ukraine. While the US has not enshrined its assurance to defend Taiwan in a treaty, repeated statements from Washington make clear that Washington is committed to Taiwan in a way that it isn’t to other non-treaty allies. To wit, the White House has explicitly ruled out direct use of force to defend Ukraine from a Russian attack. This means military conflict over Kyiv doesn’t risk escalating into World War III, whereas Xi faces the prospect of war with the US if he decides to invade Taiwan.
A Russian re-invasion or annexation of Ukraine would impose limited costs on the US and would not lead to the demise of NATO (indeed, it would almost certainly strengthen the alliance). A failure of deterrence and defense of Taiwan, on the other hand, would significantly erode US military power in the western Pacific and kneecap America’s technological supremacy over China. The gap in geopolitical stakes makes it more credible that the US and its allies would go to war over Taiwan.
In turn, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be much less likely to succeed and much more costly than a Russian re-invasion of Ukraine. Beijing’s military capabilities are steadily increasing but they remain decades from ensuring a quick victory and an easy occupation in the face of US opposition. And unlike Russia, China’s economy is strongly dependent on America and its allies. Were China to attack Taiwan, it would risk a humiliating military defeat, devastating economic damage, and sweeping diplomatic isolation—all of which would threaten Xi’s and the Communist Party’s standing.
That’s not a risk Beijing needs to take. Unlike Putin, the leader of a declining power, Xi Jinping looks forward to leading his country into the 2030s, when the economic, military, and technological balance of power will favor China far more than it does today. It’s also likely that in that time the US will become increasingly consumed by domestic crises, or that a US president will be elected who is unwilling to defend Taiwan. Why act now at great peril rather than wait for the balance and circumstances to swing in his favor? As long as deterrence works to keep Washington and Taipei clear of China’s red lines—no declaration or recognition of Taiwan independence—Xi can afford to bide his time until he’s able to change the political map without firing a shot.
The riskier course of action would be to listen to the credibility advocates and entangle the US more assertively in yet another conflict of peripheral strategic value. Indeed, war with Russia would divert American resources and attention away from the Indo-Pacific, making the US deterrent in Taiwan less powerful and a Chinese attack more likely.
Beijing would love nothing more than an overextended US.
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.
The WTA ditches China over Peng. Is an Olympic boycott next?
The Women’s Tennis Association this week decided to suspend all tournaments in China, over doubts that the country’s star player Peng Shuai is safe and sound. Peng recently disappeared for three weeks after accusing a former Vice Premier of sexual assault. Although she has since resurfaced, telling the International Olympic Committee that she’s fine and just wants a little privacy, there are still concerns that Peng has been subjected to intimidation by the Chinese state.
The WTA, which wants to be able to interview Peng outside of China, says it’s putting principle above profit in a country where it reportedly has more than $100 million on the line. The NBA, by contrast, which has been famously reluctant to criticize China, has operations there worth some $5 billion. (Spot the difference?)
The decision by the WTA — the first major sports organization to ditch China over human rights questions — will add momentum to longstanding calls for a boycott of the upcoming Winter Olympics in Beijing, despite the International Olympic Committee’s “unanimous conclusion” that Peng is fine.
Until now, the Olympic boycott campaign has focused chiefly on China’s human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. But Peng Shuai attaches name recognition, star power, and a courageous personal story to the issue in a way that could galvanize wider awareness and pressure. Influential global tennis superstars like Serena Williams and Novak Djoković have already praised the WTA's decision, and trending hashtags abound.
The Biden administration, for its part, says it is considering a “diplomatic boycott,” in which top officials would not travel to the Games. Britain and Canada have floated similar ideas, but to actually keep their athletes from competing would be a major escalation. The US hasn’t done so since boycotting the 1980 Moscow Summer Games over the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan a year earlier.
The boycott dilemma. Doubtless a boycott by the world’s largest economy — and perennial top medalist at the Games — would be a blow to China’s prestige. But in addition to considering the impact on athletes, Washington would also need to answer an important global political question: how many other countries — particularly smaller ones wary of angering a cash-flush China — would actually follow suit?
Biden wants the world to believe that “America is Back” — but if the US stands up with a boycott that few others follow, it could look like an own-goal.
What We're Watching: Australia hearts coal, Egypt emergency lifted, US lobbies for Taiwan
Australia's underwhelming climate pledge: After waffling on whether he'd attend COP26, Prime Minister Scott Morrison now says Australia will achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. But there's a catch: the scheme would not involve overhauling the country's lucrative fossil fuel sector. The PM also stopped short of making ambitious targets by 2030, one of the key objectives of COP26. Australia is one of the world's top coal-producing countries and has one of the biggest carbon footprints per capita, but its government has long dragged its feet on climate change — mainly because fossil fuel exports are a boon for the economy. "We won't be lectured by others who do not understand Australia," Morrison said in response to criticism about his government's weaker-than-hoped-for pledges. While the US has pledged to halve its carbon output by 2030, and the EU says it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions 55 percent from 1990 levels by 2030, Australia is aiming for a mere 26 percent cut on 2005 emissions in that period.
Sisi lifts four-year state of emergency in Egypt: You might be surprised to learn that a state of emergency has been in place in Egypt since 2017, allowing the authorities to make arbitrary arrests and search people's homes without a warrant. Freedom of the press and assembly have also been curtailed. Now, strongman President Abdul Fattah el-Sisi, who led the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government in 2013, has lifted the measure put in place after a series of Islamic State attacks on mosques and Coptic churches killed hundreds of Egyptians. El-Sisi, a security hawk, said that he made the move because Egypt had become an "oasis of security and stability in the region." Egypt has long been battling an Islamist insurgency in the northern Sinai Peninsula that has at times spread to other parts of the country. Though the Egyptian military has made massive gains there recently, dramatically improving the security situation, some violence persists.
US defends Taiwan at the UN: US Secretary of State Tony Blinken on Tuesday demanded Taiwan be allowed "meaningful participation" at UN agencies, just as China, which sees the island as part of the mainland, celebrated 50 years of membership at the UN. Washington says China's exclusion of Taiwan undermines UN bodies like the World Health Organization, which kept the island out of its COVID information loop due to strong pressure from Beijing. But Xi Jinping is as likely to tolerate Taiwan acting independently at the UN as he is to restore democracy to Hong Hong or play nice with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Still, the Americans know that Taiwan is such a sensitive issue for China and that any gesture of US support is sure to rile up Xi (perhaps that's the point). This also comes just days after Biden blurted out that America would defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack, reversing more than four decades of US "strategic ambiguity" on the issue: recognize the mainland yet also promise to help Taiwan defend itself.