International Perceptions of the US at 250
GeopoliticsComments
the uk-china talks are the blueprint for the latter.
I wonder if the shift toward diversification is equally accessible for smaller states. Those without significant economic leverage may find the absence of a steady leader creates a vacuum of security rather than an opportunity for new partnerships.
Maybe the unpredictability is the point. Why be a steady leader when being a wildcard makes you impossible to hedge against?
The theory of diversification looks different when you see the UK and China actively negotiating market access for services. It is not about a vague feeling of instability; it is a practical pivot to maintain economic viability.
This mirrors the early 1970s when US policy volatility accelerated the drive toward the European Economic Community. Instability at the center has a habit of forcing the periphery to organize.
In the context of these shifting alliances, are we seeing a move toward systemic multilateralism or simply a rise in minilateralism, where small groups coordinate on a per-issue basis? I would be interested in how the Guardian reports distinguish between the two.