Empty Board Room | Photo by Danielle Cerullo on Unsplash
Over the years, I have developed good relations with a wide range of think tanks in Washington, DC. However, one that I particularly look forward to receiving information from is Eurasia Group founder and president Ian Bremmer, who has become a personal friend.
Although this year is “looking extraordinary” when seen from a “certain perspective,” Ian tells us that despite certain encouraging developments—such as the prospect of negotiations and even a possible ceasefire in the war in Ukraine, the diminishing violence in Gaza and beyond, and a hotly contested presidential election that resulted in an “undisputed winner with a clear mandate” – a closer look shows that the world has “big problems.”
A “community of nations” is “the stuff of fairy tales, with governance that isn’t meeting the needs of citizens. Our challenges are global, whether those related to climate, technology, the economy or national security,” the political scientist and New York Times bestselling author asserts.
Certainly, it is lamentable that “we are heading back to the law of the jungle,” seeing a world where “the strongest do what they can while the weakest are condemned to suffer what they must. And the former – whether states, companies or individuals – can’t be trusted to act in the interest of those they have power over,” he stresses.
Ian spotlights the US and China, saying these “two most powerful countries in the world” are assertively rejecting responsibility for the rest of the planet as they focus inward on the enemies, first and foremost within their borders, increasingly worrying over threats to their stability.
Based on Ian’s analysis, the biggest global risk for 2025 is the emergence of a “G-Zero World:” an era when “no one power or group of powers is both willing and able to drive a global agenda and maintain international order. That global deficit is growing critically dangerous.”
In his 2012 book, Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, Bremmer discussed the dangers of a growing power vacuum in which no country or alliance of countries is willing to assume global leadership.
Today, this power vacuum poses “a recipe for endemic geopolitical instability that will weaken the world’s security and economic architecture, create new and expanding power vacuums, embolden rogue actors and increase the likelihood of accidents, miscalculation, and conflict,” with the risk of economic disruptions and dangerous military clashes that could grow when no one is able and willing to uphold global peace and prosperity.
“Our top risk this year is not a single event. It’s the cumulative impact of the G-Zero leadership deficit on the breakdown of the global order. We’re entering a uniquely dangerous period of world history on par with the 1930s and the early cold war,” he warns.
Despite this grim picture, some people hope for “far stronger international cooperation than is thought desirable or would be feasible” to solve such challenges—although they are dismayed that “the political actors most essential to strengthening global institutions are moving in the other direction.”
“We definitely want to have stronger ties with countries that share our values and whose security interests align with ours because a strong and stable economy will define the future of the Philippines.“
“Risk # 7: Beggar Thy World” particularly caught my attention, as it discusses the rivalry between the United States and China. “Global markets are riding high on hopes of a strengthening global economic expansion in 2025.” Still, according to Ian, the world’s two giant economies are “set to export disruption to everyone else this year, short-circuiting the global recovery and accelerating geo-economic fragmentation.”
China’s economy has been experiencing its weakest performance in decades, with a deepening property crisis, mounting debt, and collapsing confidence, all of which have exposed the limits of Beijing’s growth model. At the same time, US president-elect Donald Trump has announced plans to impose tariffs to correct unfair practices against the US. But the timing is abysmal, given the tepid global growth, inflation remaining sticky, and debt levels at historic highs, with even developed economies like Japan and Italy still struggling with debt burdens, Ian states.
“Against this backdrop, governments that won recent elections promising better times ahead will face a harsh reality check. Their honeymoons will be brief as global economic pressures turn political. Many emerging and frontier economies must decide between raising taxes or slashing spending,” he cautions.
Like other nations, the Philippines will have to find a way to navigate these global risks that could impact its economic transformation goals. A study conducted by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies titled “Macroeconomic Prospects of the Philippines in 2024-2025: Toward Upper Middle-Income Status” forecasts a 6.1 percent year-on-year GDP growth for 2025 and identifies key drivers of progress like enhanced macroeconomic stability, effective governance and deeper integration into international trade and investment networks.
While there are promising trends, the study highlights challenges to growth in 2025, particularly the global economic slowdown, which poses risks to demand for Philippine exports.
PIDS emphasizes that to mitigate these risks, the Philippines must strengthen regional ties within ASEAN and expand trade partnerships with the US, China, and other global players.
We definitely want to have stronger ties with countries that share our values and whose security interests align with ours because a strong and stable economy will define the future of the Philippines. At the same time, we must find ways to strengthen economic relations with China, whose economy is currently on a downward trend but inextricably intertwined with the rest of the world. There is always hope that a peaceful resolution to our maritime issues will come sometime.
Email: babeseyeview@gmail.com
