Goodbye 9/11 Era, Hello Great Power Competition Era
The top 2023 conflicts to watch, corporate exodus in Russia: one year later, and a bit of climate optimism
It’s April already, so why am I diving into a 2023 survey on top conflicts to watch? There are two reasons: A) We're already seeing some of the forecasts (heightened tensions between China and Taiwan) play out in real-time, and B) surveys like this one prompted me to start this newsletter in the first place. The more I assess what's happening geopolitically in the world, the more I ask myself: How can we use current events to better mitigate and plan for the inevitable consequences?
Every year, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) conducts the Preventive Priorities Survey (PPS), in which U.S. foreign policy experts assess the likelihood and impact of potential conflicts that could emerge or escalate in the new year.
The big takeaway this year? The 9/11 era seems to have receded into the rearview mirror, and our greatest threats now emanate from Great Power Competition.
As Senior Fellow for Conflict Prevention and Director of the Center for Preventive Action Paul B. Stares explains:
Notably, for the first time since the PPS began fifteen years ago, the possibility of a foreign terrorist organization inflicting a mass casualty attack on the United States or a treaty ally was not proposed as a plausible contingency for the coming year. The 9/11 era, when foreign terrorist-related threats dominated the results of the PPS, appears to be over.
Of course, while the risk of international terrorism has lowered, the U.S. remains in a heightened threat environment for domestic terrorism. Still, this marks an important shift given the fact that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was pulled under the Department of Homeland Security, which was newly created on March 1, 2003, as a direct response to 9/11.
So, according to the PPS, what are the contingencies considered top-tier risks for 2023?
Likelihood: Moderate; Impact: High
An escalation of coercive pressure by China toward Taiwan, including heightened military activity, precipitates a severe cross-strait crisis involving the United States and other countries in the region
An escalation of the armed conflict in Ukraine resulting from the employment of unconventional weapons, spillover into neighboring countries (including cyberattacks on critical infrastructure), and/or the direct involvement of NATO members
A highly disruptive cyberattack targeting U.S. critical infrastructure by a state or nonstate entity
Popular dissatisfaction with the war in Ukraine and worsening economic conditions lead to growing civil unrest in Russia and a power struggle in Moscow
An acute security crisis in Northeast Asia triggered by North Korea’s development and testing of nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles
A military confrontation between Israel and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program and its continued support for militant groups in neighboring countries
Increased violence, political unrest, and worsening economic conditions in Central America and Mexico, aggravated by acute weather events, fuel a surge in migration to the United States
This begs the question: As we now navigate the era of Great Power Competition, how does crisis management need to pivot to operationalize on these threats?
For a deep dive into the PPS, check out this CFR podcast interview.
Things that caught my eye…
In my write-up for the LSE on why corporations must elevate the role of crisis management, I highlighted how “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine prompted a mass corporate exodus from the country” with over 1,000 companies having publicly announced they are voluntarily curtailing operations in Russia for both economic and ethical reasons. So, where do they stand today?
Over a year post-invasion and “only 9% of foreign firms operating in Russia have closed down at least one of their subsidiaries.” LSE professors Saul Estrin and Klaus E Meyer detail that while “[c]ompanies which have left have often found their standing, and their market valuation, benefitting from such a move […] finding the exit door is not easy.” The four challenges corporations face in leaving the country are:
Interdependence of global operations
Ethical challenges
Operational challenges to selling a business
Russian policies
The City of Seattle recently posted a job for a “Climate & Workforce Development Advisor” for their Office of Sustainability and Environment. It perfectly blends climate-focused work and equitable workforce development. Wouldn’t it be neat if FEMA or other large emergency management agencies had a role like this?
A chapter in the newly published Economic Report of the President focuses on the growing risks to people and businesses from rising temperatures and the government’s role in adapting to them.
It lays out how much government policies, as they are right now, are encouraging people to take more risk in the face of climate change and that so long as the federal government does that, people won't correctly account for the risks of where they live. In doing so, the costs of living in high-risk areas end up being borne by taxpayers, meaning people who don’t live in risky areas essentially subsidize the people who do.
The report offers multiple adaptation strategies, including "re-envisioning social insurance under climate change." According to Jim Tankersley, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, this would be a national multi-parallel disaster insurance program similar to what exists in places like France and New Zealand. The idea is that everything (all hazards) would be covered under one policy, and everybody would have to buy it. With everyone paying into it, it spreads the risk, and it’s the fund that pays out the benefits, not the government.
In crisis management circles, the debate about whether people should be allowed to rebuild in highly prone risk areas is alive and well. Given the rise in occurrence and magnitude of disasters around the country, this proposal marks an interesting concept. I’ll be curious to see if it gains traction in years to come.
Things I’m reading….
Move: Where People Are Going for a Better Future by Parag Khanna. Climate change and political conflicts are driving masses of people to find a new home around the world. The geopolitics of movement raise important factors for us as crisis managers to consider. Which places will soon no longer become livable? How do we effectively plan (think urban planning, housing, social services, disaster mitigation) for newcomers? Will the attractive, new host cities/regions/countries lose their stability because of the changes to their social make-up?
Climate Optimism: Celebrating Systemic Change Around the World by Zahra Biabani. Biabani spent the last 2.5 years collecting positive climate news. I’m technically not reading this *yet*, but getting a fair dose of fact-based hope as it relates to our climate lands this brand new book for sure on my reading list!
Things I’m looking forward to…
Later this month, I will be traveling to Singapore to speak at the Overseas Security Advisory Council’s (OSAC) Pan-Asia Regional Committee (PARC) Summit. I’m excited to reunite with former Disney colleagues and to discover the city-state. If you have any recs for must-dos and must-sees, drop me a line!
I applied to participate in the Global Youth Climate Training, a 13-week course developed between the University of Oxford and the Global Youth Coalition, a worldwide organization supporting youth-led climate action. Their goal is to empower young people with the necessary tools to actively participate in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change system. Sign up and join me! :)
Eligibility: Youth under 35; no requirement to attend COP28 in Dubai
Application: Open until April 30th, 11:59 UTC
Cost: Free; participants only need a free Zoom account
Translation: Live interpretation across languages provided
Hope you enjoyed this second issue of Futurisk! Until next month 👋🏽
"Of course, while the risk of international terrorism has lowered, the U.S. remains in a heightened threat environment for domestic terrorism."
Indeed. While some predicted that this century would be defined by the "clash of civilizations," it will instead be defined by the "clash within civilizations." Political polarization makes it far more likely for countries like the US to erode from within.
Personally, I find this risk far more salient than great power struggles. The key challenge will not be preventing invasion, but rather implosion.