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 Winter Olympics in a divided world
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here, and a happy start of the week to you. Got your Quick Take to get you going on a Monday, and why not talk about the Olympics, the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics, so different from the Summer Olympics that they hosted back in 2008, when the American president was there, and was enormously impressed, and this was China coming out onto the world stage, and seen as a global leader. Though the presumption in the West was still as they got wealthier and more powerful, and we let them into global leadership roles, including hosting the Olympics, they would eventually become more of a free market and more democratic. And of course, that was wrong.
In fact, that was probably the single most wrong thing, most wrong view that was held over the past couple of decades by the foreign policy establishment of the West, irrespective of what side of the aisle you're on. But anyway, here we are in 2022, and it is a much more divided world. It is a much more geopolitically fractious world, and it's a world where a lot of people are saying and saying things that are pretty unhappy about Beijing hosting this Winter Olympics. People thought it was going to be very geopolitically fraught. So far, that's not been the case. It's been more or less Olympics as pandemic usual, which means no crowds kind of lockdown, but also means not a lot really happening on the political front.
So there have been a handful of diplomatic boycotts of the Olympics by the United States and a few allies. Most Europeans chose not to go along. The Japanese chose not to go along. Countries like Australia, for example, the UK have. And then the surprise on that front, India, but this was really self-inflicted by the Chinese government. The Indians were planning on sending a delegation, and then the Chinese government decided to include among the torchbearers a Chinese soldier that had been injured in the territorial dispute up in the Himalayas between India and China, and actual fighting between the two sides, which the Indian see as overwhelmingly having been precipitated by the Chinese. So once that happened, the Indians said, "We're out."
But I mean, frankly, the fact that the Chinese felt confident enough to do that, the fact that the Chinese felt confident enough to have an ethnic Uyghur lighting the Olympic flame, I mean, these are signs of confidence, signs of, we don't care what you say or do, the West. And frankly, no athletes decided to boycott, and no corporate sponsoring decided to boycott. And so you put all of that together, and well over 90% of the countries of the world did not join in a diplomatic boycott. So I think the Chinese government feels pretty comfortable in all that. Where they feel much less comfortable is how this closed-loop Olympics is going to work, and whether or not they can ensure, first of all, minimum case spread inside the Olympics itself, therefore minimum disruption of the Olympic events. So far, reasonably good marks on that. Probably B+, A-.
And also most importantly, can they ensure that there is no spread from the Olympics into the Chinese population at large? So far, that looks good. Certainly no reported cases. If it was a very small number of cases, I doubt we would find out about it. The Chinese government would have high incentive not to make that known. But nonetheless, so far, if you are the Chinese leadership, you're feeling pretty good about the way all of this is going on.
I will say, by the way, I've watched a little bit of the Olympics. I'm not one of these people that says, "Oh, there's a diplomatic boycott, and so we should cut everything off." First of all, I don't believe in punishing the athletes who have spent their entire lives training for this moment, in most cases, and taking it away because we are politically unhappy with the Chinese government. Seems like they should not be the people that suffer. I mean, if the average American isn't willing to do without Chinese goods on their table because they're a little bit cheaper, then I'm sure as hell, I'm not willing to talk to hundreds of American athletes and say, "Sorry, you've got no shot at what you've prepared your entire life for." So I don't think that's fair.
And I also like to believe that sports are international sports, et cetera, one of those places where we try to put politics as much aside as possible. That doesn't mean I'd be in favor of the North Koreans hosting the Olympics, for example. It doesn't mean, I think none of this stuff matters. Of course, it does. But when it comes to China, it's such an important relationship, and of course, is a relationship that is among close to economic and technological equals, which in reality limits the ability of the Americans to dictate how the Chinese should behave very different than the US-Mexico relationship, for example, or others. And that's just reality, irrespective of whether or not I'm happy about it. But I mean, you still can't deny reality.
And I also think that it's important, given the interdependence in the relationship, to focus areas of conflict on those that we need to have, like on Chinese theft of intellectual property, or like on massive human rights abuses like with the Uyghurs, which the Americans consider to be act of genocide. I'm all in favor of the sanctions against those companies that are engaged in slave labor, or otherwise benefiting from that unconscionable series of decisions that the Chinese government had taken against their own citizens. But that's very different from saying, "I want to see the Olympics get boycotted."
I haven't watched all that much, in part because I'm busy, but I did see a little bit of the opening ceremony because I wanted to see how the international media was covering it. And I would say it's been a difficult needle to thread, but they've mostly given the fact that they're there. They certainly aren't just saying things the Chinese government would like. I mean, whether I saw NBC coverage, and I've seen some international coverage, and generally, I would say they're doing a reasonably down the straight and narrow job of, "We're not politics correspondents, we're sports correspondents, we're entertainment correspondent, but we are going to present the honest reality around the controversy here.” And the controversy is real.
And then beyond that, I watched the curling between the US and Canada, the mixed curling. The Americans got smoked. I was a little sad about that. I like curling. I was very disappointed with the uniforms. Usually, the uniform is very good. I also like curling because it feels to me like the one Olympic sport that if I just stopped being a political scientist and dedicated five years of my life at nothing but curling, I would have a shot of being on an Olympics team somewhere. Maybe not the US. I might need dual citizenship, but I mean, Honduras doesn't have a curling team. This feels like an opportunity. Furthermore, I don't know why I came up with Honduras. Just felt like a place that wouldn't necessarily have a curling team watch. I'm going to check it out, and they're going to have one. I'm going to seriously embarrassed, but I'm feeling good about it, feeling good about it.
And finally, I just say that the big story, of course, that's come out the Olympics so far, if you're a political scientist who is watching the news, was Putin at the opening ceremony. And here, I do feel pretty strongly that the Russia-China relationship is increasingly becoming an alliance, because the Chinese see American behavior in Asia, diplomatic, economic security, the creation of the Quad, AUKUS, the rest as very analogous to the way the Russians have for decades now perceived the United States and behavior with NATO in Eastern Europe. And so I do think that as the Chinese, we're unhappy with Russia's revisionism. With Russia, "I want to blow up and undermine the global order," China is increasingly aligning with that Russian perspective. Long term, it's a dangerous thing for the world. It's certainly not a good thing for the Americans and American allies, whether in the Atlantic or across the Pacific. But it is meaningful. It is real, and the joint statement between the Chinese and the Russians on Ukraine certainly implied a level of Chinese alignment with Russian demands about Ukraine and the European security system.
I will caveat that with saying that China has never recognized Crimea as part of Russia, and China still favors a diplomatic resolution through the Minsk dialogues of the occupied territory of the Donbas. So they're only going so far. They don't want to fight. They want a diplomatic resolution, but they're putting their finger on the scale of the Russians, and this certainly helps Putin to a degree, as well as willingness of China to invest more, trade more with the Russians and the like in the run up to a couple of very critical weeks of negotiations between the Russians, the Americans, the French, the Germans, and the rest of NATO.
So that's where we are, and I am glad that the athletes are able to participate in their life dream. And for those of you that are watching, I hope you find it all entertaining. And for the rest of us, let's get on with the week. Talk to you all soon. Be good.
For more of Ian Bremmer's weekly analyses, subscribe to his GZERO World newsletter at ianbremmer.bulletin.com
- Signal quiz! Winter Olympics trivia - GZERO Media ›
- Why Xi Jinping might pull off the Winter Olympics - GZERO Media ›
- COVID at the Beijing Winter Olympics - GZERO Media ›
- Beijing's struggle to keep the Olympics COVID free - GZERO Media ›
- Will the US and other Western countries really boycott the Beijing ... ›
A police officer walks past a poster depicting Bing Dwen Dwen (R), the mascot of the 2022 Winter Olympics, and Shuey Rhon Rhon (L), the mascot of the 2022 Winter Paralympics.
Signal quiz! Winter Olympics trivia
The Winter Olympics have enjoyed their fair share of political drama over the years. As the 2022 Games open in Beijing, test your knowledge of these moments in this special Signal quiz. Let us know if you score gold.
1. What did then-US President George W. Bush do at the opening ceremony for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games?
A. Stand alongside Team USA instead of in the VIP box
B. Bet with Vladimir Putin that the US would beat Russia in men’s ice hockey
C. Prepare his State of the Union speech
2. Who carried the unified Korean flag at the Pyeongchang 2018 opening ceremony?
A. North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un & South Korea's President Moon Jae-in
B. Kim's sister Yo Chong and South Korean First Lady Kim Jung-sook, also a famous singer
C. North Korean hockey player Hwang Chung-gum & South Korean bobsledder Won Yun-jong
3. Many Western governments have joined the US-led official diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Games over China's policies in Xinjiang. Eight years ago, why did some Western leaders also decline to attend Sochi 2014?
A. Russia had invited delegations from the pro-Russian Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which Russia defended in its 2008 brief war with Georgia
B. Russia’s anti-LBGT laws
C. They had a vision in a dream that Putin was up to something in Ukraine and would months later annex Crimea
4. Taiwanese speed skater Huang Yu-ting has come under fire for this political gesture.
A. Supporting Taiwan’s independence from China
B. Refusing to compete under the China-approved name “Taipei, China” for Taiwan
C. Wearing (mainland) China’s uniform during practice
5. Which of the following is NOT a Beijing 2022 official mascot?
A. Bing Dwen Dwen, a panda with an ice suit
B. Winnie the Pooh
C. Shuey Rhon Rhon, an anthropomorphic lantern
Answers
1. A — Bush 43 stood alongside Team USA instead of in the VIP box with other world leaders to show national unity just months after 9/11.
2. C — The athletes from the two Koreas wove a white flag with the blue outline of the Korean Peninsula. It was a Disney moment that just weeks later compelled the North Koreans to seek talks with the South.
3. B — Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Angela Merkel all passed on Sochi after the Russian parliament passed a law banning “gay propaganda” that human rights groups say caused a surge in violence against LGBT people.
4. C — Huang said she wore the suit to show friendship with her Chinese rivals. But since China is not showing Taiwan a lot of love these days, back home she’s been panned over the gesture.
5. B — Chinese netizens have long thought Xi Jinping bears an eerie resemblance to the fictional teddy bear in this 2013 photo walking with then-US President Barack Obama. The comparison triggers Xi, so China has since banned Winnie the Pooh online.Why Xi Jinping might pull off the Winter Olympics
The Beijing Winter Olympics kick off this week against the backdrop of an ongoing pandemic, volatile geopolitics, and diplomatic boycotts over China’s human rights record. But Beijing is still going for gold.
Some anticipate that these dynamics will render the Games — a platform for flexing global soft power — a failure. But there are compelling reasons to believe China’s President Xi Jinping could pull off the massive sporting event successfully, thereby boosting Beijing’s diplomatic bonafides and proving naysayers wrong.
Boycotts aren’t working. Half a dozen countries recently joined the Biden administration in a diplomatic boycott of the Games over China’s abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
Washington was probably hoping for a more robust domino effect. But the combined commitments from multinational corporations to sponsor the Games — the top 13 multinationals have contracts with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) worth more than $1 billion – have undermined Biden’s attempt to alienate Beijing. What’s more, the Washington-led boycott may be backfiring. It’s giving China a means for stoking nationalist sentiment and reinforcing the ruling Communist Party’s narrative that the US is trying to steal China’s thunder.
Is there a silver lining to zero-COVID policy? China’s zero-COVID policy puts it and the world at risk of economic and political instability. That’s why GZERO’s parent company Eurasia Group deemed it the biggest geopolitical risk for 2022. Meanwhile, some health experts warn that despite very strict quarantine and testing schemes in Beijing, an omicron breakout is likely given that teams from some 90 countries are flying in for the. (At least 119 athletes and staff have already tested positive.) Undeniably, this would strike a big blow to Xi’s credibility at home after he refused to budge on this contentious containment strategy.
But "zero COVID" might also work in Beijing’s favor by enabling the CCP to better control the flow of information and overall optics. China’s government is already busy censoring the social media accounts of prominent Chinese activists. It’s warned athletes that protests will lead to prosecution, and with strict COVID restrictions in place, Beijing can more easily monitor its foreign guests.
The IOC needs China. IOC President Thomas Bach recently said that the Swiss-based sports organization should not be expected to solve complex geopolitical issues for which “not a UN Security Council, no G7, no G20, has a solution.” Also, maintaining warm ties with Beijing may be crucial to the longevity of the games, particularly now when many countries are struggling to convince citizens that hosting the Olympics is worthwhile, despite the cost. China’s authoritarian government, on the other hand, doesn’t need to hold referendums to gauge popular support.
And it’s not just the Olympics. The power of China's chokehold over sporting revenues has played out in other contexts, too. In 2019, Beijing took NBA games off the air for an entire year after the general manager of one team tweeted support for pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. When all was done and dusted, one tweet cost the NBA $200 million in lost revenue.
Team China to place well at the podium. Faced with a diplomatic boycott over its human rights record and omicron, China has nonetheless scored huge sponsorships. Just days out from the inauguration ceremony, Beijing is likely very happy with how things are panning out.
Beijing's struggle to keep the Olympics COVID free
COVID-19 positive cases leading up to the Beijing Olympics, a proposed defense pact between Ukraine, Poland, and the UK, and the Joe Rogan/Spotify scandal -- Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
First, how is COVID-19 affecting Beijing Olympics prep in China?
Well, we've got already well over a hundred members of Olympic athletes and staff that have tested positive twice, which means they ain't playing. They're not involved. They're going to go home. And these numbers are going to go way up. I do think that this idea of a complete closed loop system, the Chinese have more ability to implement and execute on that than pretty much any country in the world. So I doubt you're going to see spread from the Olympics into the broader population, but you're going to see a lot of people with COVID coming in because omicron is so incredibly spreadable. And that's going to be yet one more thing that dings a very weird Beijing Olympics with diplomatic boycotts and populations unhappy about where we are and not having fans and all the political challenges and censorship and surveillance of phones and data going to the government. And it's just so politicized that you hate to see that with global athletes, and global athletics, but that's where we are. I do say that I'm glad that the athletes are still competing. It's one of the few things that can bring us all together on this planet.
What's the update with the Russia-Ukraine crisis?
Well, the interesting thing that came out is this early stage announcement that there's a defense pact going to come between Poland, the UK and Ukraine. I understand Poland, because Poland of course sees themself as frontline, most vulnerable to the Russians, and if the Ukrainians go, what happens to us? But in the case of the UK, either there's not much to this and we'll see that it's not really a defense pact, or there is something to it, and it's a complete desperation move by Boris Johnson, who is in his last sort of gasp as prime minister, having screwed up just about everything over the last few months, get caught in lies and getting whacked by his own party members. Former PM Theresa May just took a chunk out of his hide yesterday and was applauded roundly. We'll see. If they actually are saying that they would come to Ukraine's defense if there were any Russian incursion, there's no way that was brought up with the Americans in advance. The US would not have approved that. And I think the UK's going to come in for great criticism. But watch very carefully what comes out here, okay.
Finally, Joe Rogan and Spotify, who's right, who's wrong?
It's a tough situation in the sense that he's a pretty controversial character and he's had some people online that spout lots of information that's not really good. But he does try to bring on people from all different political walks of life, some of whom I like, some of whom I think are kind of fringe and wacko. I do think you have more responsibility about the fringe people when you have that kind of an audience, because it does actually have a real impact. But I also take Joe Rogan on board when he says that there were a lot of things that used to be described as disinformation and you could be de platformed for it, and that's no longer the case. In the case of wearing masks, I mean, that's because we needed those masks for frontline workers. I understand why it was messaged the way it was at the time was for the best in terms of public safety. When it comes to denials and literally calling out as fake news the idea that COVID came from a lab in Wuhan, not intentionally, but escaped from it, I mean that honestly was misinformation and it was covering up from scientists and doctors that have done their field a disservice and have undermined themselves. And I do worry about that and I'm glad that Rogan mentioned it. So look, I don't think a lot of people are going to change their mind on Rogan on the base of this, but I will say that he's not going anywhere. And if you're his fan, you're probably still his fan and he's going to keep on keeping on for Spotify.
How China decides to handle omicron will have global implications – Yanzhong Huang
The arrival of omicron could be disastrous for China, Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, tells Ian Bremmer in a GZERO World interview.
Xi Jinping's zero-COVID approach faces its toughest test to date; the country lacks mRNA jabs which are more effective against the new variant, and so few Chinese people have gotten COVID that overall protection is very low.
Until it develops an mRNA vaccine of its own, China can expect larger outbreaks because of omicron, leading to more severe lockdowns and, in turn, greater economic disruption.
This will have implications not just for China but for the global economy as well.
Zero COVID currently remains popular with most Chinese people, but if things get really bad, Huang believes China will pivot to living with the virus, especially as the cost of keeping zero COVID in the age of omicron becomes too high.
- China's pandemic playbook will fail with Omicron — Laura Yasaitis ... ›
- The problem with China's Zero COVID strategy | GZERO World ... ›
- Ian Bremmer: Zero COVID no longer works, and China will pay a ... ›
- China's coming COVID crisis? - GZERO Media ›
- Vaccine diplomacy: China in the Global South - GZERO Media ›
Russian President Vladimir Putin attempts to shake hands with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping during a meeting in Moscow, Russia, June 5, 2019.
Russia & China vs “the West”
Russia and China have always had a complicated relationship. They almost went to war over a border dispute in 1969, and have historically regarded each other as neither friends nor enemies, but rather competitors for influence in Asia and elsewhere.
But that all started to change in 2014, the year Moscow and Beijing saw a US hand in the revolutions that prompted Russia to seize Crimea from Ukraine, and China to crack down on umbrella-wearing protesters in Hong Kong. China is increasingly thirsty for Russian oil and natural gas, and both have a common interest in standing up to “the West.”
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are now showing off their authoritarian bromance in the face of growing animosity from the US and its allies over flashpoints such as Ukraine and Taiwan.
We know how much of the West views Russia and China. But how do Russia and China view the West? Here's a hypothetical recent catch-up video call between BFFs Putin and Xi.
Xi: My dear Vladimir, what’s your Ukraine endgame? The Americans and NATO clearly think you're going to invade, and threaten to punish you for it. The question is, as always, will theywa walk the talk on sanctions that'll hurt them too, especially the Europeans who need your gas? Probably not.
The most they’ll do is send the Ukrainians weapons to fight you. They’ll put lots of NATO troops on alert, but no boots on the ground inside Ukraine.
You know China has your back. And if push comes to shove, we're already working on an alternative to the global SWIFT payments network if the Americans kick you out. It's about time we do business on our own system, without the US sanctimoniously telling us how to behave in our own backyard.
Putin: Yes, my old friend, the West is freaking out — as usual. First, I never said I’d invade. In fact, my boys told them that was not my plan, though I’m happy they don’t quite believe that. Second, I’m baffled at all the uproar over my red lines when I've simply asked NATO to stop encroaching on former Soviet territory.
China has much to gain if I get my way with the Ukrainians. If the US and NATO agree to even some of my demands, that'll demonstrate the West is weak and in decline, while the East, our two great nations, are strong and on the rise. The world will be right to wonder how America would respond to you making similar plays for the South China Sea or Taiwan.
Xi: For sure, but no need to rush. After all, you have the Americans and the Europeans exactly where you've always wanted them: outraged, but at odds over how to respond. They can't call your bluff, if you are indeed only posturing, because they're not a united front like us.
So, can you please hold off for a month or so? I have the Beijing Winter Olympics coming up, and my zero-COVID policy hasn't made things easy. And don't get me started on Xinjiang, which has nothing to do with the Games — and is no one else's business anyway — yet has all my international sponsors in a tizzy.
Putin: I guess we have a scheduling conflict then. If I wait until after the Olympics, the terrain will be too muddy for my soldiers.
What’s more, now we have an opportunity to carve out our respective global spheres of influence: China’s in East and Southeast Asia, and Russia’s in the former Soviet Union. Why should the Americans get to dictate what we get to do on our borders when they are thousands of miles away, and can't even get their own democratic house in order?
Xi: Absolutely. It's time for a multipolar world. China is ready to lead it, and we won’t forget our friends in Moscow. We’d still like a longer chat about Kazakhstan, and maybe Siberia too.
Putin: Uh, sorry, my friend. You’re breaking up a bit. Bad wifi. Let’s talk later…
- All eyes on Russia ahead of Putin-Xi meeting - GZERO Media ›
- Michael Chertoff: Russia is not a long-term strategic rival for the US - GZERO Media ›
- China's year of unpredictability - GZERO Media ›
- Russia-NATO confrontation is coming: Putin will escalate - GZERO Media ›
- Why Russia is fighting in Ukraine without any allies - GZERO Media ›
Security flaws in China’s My2022 Olympics app could allow surveillance
Marietje Schaake, International Policy Director at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center, Eurasia Group senior advisor and former MEP, discusses trends in big tech, privacy protection and cyberspace:
Does the Beijing 2022 Olympics app have security flaws?
Well, the researchers at the Citizen Lab of the University of Toronto do believe so. And if their revelations, this time, will set off a similar storm as they did with the forensics on NSO Group's spyware company, then there will be trouble ahead for China. The researchers found that the official My2022 app for the sports event, which attendees are actually required to download and to use for documenting their health status, has flaws in the security settings. Loopholes they found could be used for intrusion and surveillance.
Now, of course, China is not exactly known as a bastion of privacy protections. But beyond the flaws, the app also has a censorship keyword list, which has relation to terms like Tiananmen protests, the Dalai Lama, or the Uyghur Muslim minority. And in response, Dutch supporters will be provided with a burner phone. And sure, that might be a short-term solution, but I'm not sure whether other officials visiting China, now for the Olympics, or for business or politics, are always as careful. I remember attending a World Economic Forum events in China, as a member of European Parliament, and being one of the only ones to proactively take precautions.
Now, unfortunately, one of the researchers of the Citizen Lab confirmed that, "Our findings expose how My2022 security measures are wholly insufficient to prevent sensitive data from being disclosed to unauthorized third parties." But the Beijing organizing committee has stood by its app, and said it passed the examination of international mobile app markets, such as Google, Apple, and Samsung. So unfortunately, no clear solution in sight to make sure that systematically, human rights and privacy are better protected in China.
Activists take part in a protest against China's treatment towards the ethnic Uyghur people and calling for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, at a park Jakarta, Indonesia, January 4, 2022.
What We’re Watching: Xinjiang at the Beijing Olympics, Boris in deep(er) trouble, Indonesia’s new capital
Selling Xinjiang. Xi Jinping — a man well known for both his grand vision of China’s future, and for his willingness to get large numbers of people to do things they might not otherwise do — said in 2018 that he wanted 300 million Chinese people to participate in winter sports. The Chinese government announced this week that this goal has been met in honor of the Beijing Winter Olympic Games, which open in China’s capital on February 4. Multinational companies are consistently impressed by the commercial opportunities created when 300 million people decide to try new things. But it’s an inconvenient truth that most of China’s most abundant snow and best ski slopes are found in the northwestern region of Xinjiang, a place where Western governments and human rights organizations have accused Beijing of imprisoning more than one million minority Uyghurs in re-education camps. In these prisons, critics say inmates have experienced “torture, and inhumane and degrading treatment.” As China’s government opens new profit opportunities in Xinjiang, multinational corporations will face pressure from multiple directions not to invest there.
Boris at the battlements. “In the name of God, go,” Conservative lawmaker David Davis said on Tuesday during an especially heated session of the UK parliament. These words, once directed at former PM Neville Chamberlain over his inept handling of Adolph Hitler, were this week aimed at the current prime minister, Boris Johnson. Now comes news that a dozen other of Johnson’s fellow Tories have sent letters calling for a vote of confidence in him as party leader. That’s a sign we might see the 54 letters needed to trigger that vote in coming weeks. Johnson’s approval numbers speak for themselves: the latest polls show that just 22 percent of British adults say he’s doing “well” as prime minister, while 73 percent say Johnson is performing “badly.” As we’ve written, his problem is not only, or even mainly, that he attends parties he shouldn’t. It’s that controversies over pandemic policies, the (rising) cost of living in the UK, and lingering Brexit bitterness have given rivals within his party who have never much liked him plentiful ammunition to complete his political execution.
Goodbye Jakarta, hello Nusantara. Indonesia passed a new law on Tuesday authorizing the government to relocate the capital from Jakarta to a new city to be built on Borneo island in about a decade. It will be called Nusantara, the old Javanese word for "archipelago.” President Joko Widodo wants to ditch Jakarta because the current capital is too congested, polluted, and flood-prone. But building an entire capital city from scratch in the middle of the jungle — as Brazil and Myanmar have done in past decades — will be no easy feat. First, the government must raise most of the $32 billion budget from private investors. Second, environmental groups oppose destroying precious rainforests that are home to many endangered species. Third, the president’s successor could shelve the entire project. Widodo, who is term-limited, aims for Nusantara to become a low-carbon business & tech hub that will promote sustainable economic growth beyond the main island of Java, where most Indonesians live. Whether that will take the expected 10 years, much longer, or happens at all will depend on the country’s next leader.