The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Will Technology Define the Future of Geopolitics?

Episode Date: November 13, 2024

In an era of growing geopolitical tensions paralleled by deepening digitalization of economies and societies, has technology become the new battleground in the geopolitical quest for power? Host Steve Paikin asks: George Takach (author, "Cold War 2.0: Artificial Intelligence in the New Battle Between China, Russia and America"), Rachel Ziemba (Center for a New American Security), and Bessma Momani (University of Waterloo). See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In an era of rising global tensions coupled with the increasing digitization of economies and societies, to what extent will new technologies like artificial intelligence play in the geopolitical quest for power? Let's ask. In Syracuse, Italy, George Takash, Senior Fellow at the Bill Graham Center for Contemporary History at the U of T and the author of Cold War 2.0, Artificial Intelligence in the New Battle Between China, Russia and America. In Washington, D.C., Rachel Ziemba, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and Lecturer at New York University's Center for Global Affairs. And here in studio, Besmah Mwamane, professor of political science at the University of Waterloo, senior fellow at CG, the Center for International Governance Innovation,

and somebody who just drove two hours to get here. You are brave to brave our traffic. So well done. Thank you for being here, Besma. Once again, Georgia, Rachel, great to have you on our program tonight. George, I want to start with you because the title of your book, Cold War 2.0, suggests obviously we're in the middle of a second Cold War. Why do you think? Well in terms of geopolitics, a couple of the leading autocracies in the world, specifically China and Russia, and their junior partners, Iran and North Korea, have dragged us into this Cold War because those autocracies are no longer willing to comply with the rules-based international order.

And what that has produced, the tsunami of cyber attacks, ransomware attacks, including against hospitals in Ontario, public libraries in Ontario, and then waves of disinformation into social media in Ontario, public libraries in Ontario, and then waves of disinformation into social media in Ontario and Canada. We're seeing economic coercion by these autocracies against the democracies. Hostage diplomacy, we saw that with the two Michaels. And then finally, in terms of the Cold War, China is launching all sorts of gray zone military punishment drills around Taiwan, which is a critical democracy.

And then like in the first Cold War, you had regional hot wars, and we've got a big one And we've got a big one currently in Ukraine by Vladimir Putin. And we've got Iran sowing and fomenting military war in the Middle East. So if people are wondering why we're covering this story here, the answer is because it hits home. It definitely hits home for us. Rachel, I wonder if you could pick up on that answer and maybe add to the list of when we talk about the technological changes that are sweeping across the globe and affecting us in this way,

what other types of technology do we need to know about? Sure, so in addition to all these risks that George has laid out very well, we're also seeing countries, including Canada, really looking to leverage new technologies and develop, you know, sort of drive growth. Oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who might sometimes be seen as as junior partners of either the US or China, are really putting a lot of money into sort of AI and tech development.

We are seeing increasing technology in automotive supply chains and all of the sort of, and really any supply chain we're looking at, even metals, mining, oil and gas industries are so important to Canada. This is increasingly one where geological data on a variety of things are being used. And the risk is, as you have these different actors, that some of these critical supply chains could be tampered with, not only by hackers, but a variety of others. So I think this is something that is affecting both from a risk side, but also an opportunity side here in Canada and

around the world. Vesma, this collision between tech and geopolitics, we've heard some examples from George. You want to, I don't know, anything else on your list you think we ought to know about that we need to add to it? I definitely add chips, semiconductors. This is really where I think things really hit home. We talked a little bit about supply chains and you heard that. I'd definitely add chips, semiconductors. This is really where I think things really hit home. We talked a little bit about supply chains,

and you heard that. And this really started when, frankly, COVID hit, and we started to become really aware of the word supply chains. It became common dinner conversation, frankly. And it really raised awareness on the vulnerability of what we used to think was just-in-time delivery, really this idea that globalization

being unfettered worked for us. And then all of a sudden, not only are we scrambling for masks, which we did, we're scrambling certainly for all things PPE, and not to forget the fact that chips were a big component of that and that they were really just not available. And we have a system today where a lot of our consumer products are smart. I mean, once you say smart, it's the Internet of Things. They're connected online. They need chips. And so washing machines have chips now in it.

So it's become ubiquitous in all of our consumer goods. And so what this did, what COVID did, is really opened our eyes to this vulnerability and this nationalism of making sure that our supply chains are secure and safe and just-in-time delivery no longer sufficed, not for the average person and certainly not for policymakers.

And it became suddenly a national security interest. And so geopolitics and national security really came to light, I think, because of COVID, not to say that it hadn't preceded that with Trump's trade wars, which he started with China initially back in 2018, but it just hit home. And lastly, I'm going to put in there is populism. Let's not forget, because at the end of the day, this idea of relying on external sources,

this idea of relying on unfettered globalization, just no longer, no longer was something that I think the average public was going to put up with. And populist leaders today are more likely to blame external foes, the external actors. And so we're doing a lot of China bashing and common parlance of a lot of policymakers. And that's really, I think, what has highlighted. So I'd focus on chips. It's really the ubiquitous thing in all of our consumer goods. and it's going to mean we are currently in a chip war very much as George pointed out a reason for part of the Cold War 2.0.

I was going to get to this later George but since BESMA pointed out the realities of last week's election in the United States, how do you see this thing changing or not as a result of the election of Donald Trump? And does it, does it kind of go on steroids now or what happens? Well, just to, you know, bring together everything that we've already mentioned. Um, ground zero for geopolitics and technology and specifically chips, as, as, as Bessma pointed out is Taiwan. 92% of the advanced semiconductor chips in the world today are made on this small island called Taiwan. It's no bigger than Vancouver Island.

TSMC, the leading chip manufacturer, is heavily into Taiwan. 14 plants. I was there about a year ago and it's really an astounding place. And Donald Trump is ambivalent as to whether he's going to come to the defense of Taiwan because China, 160 kilometers, that's all away from Taiwan across the Taiwan Strait. China says that Taiwan belongs to China and Taiwan has other thoughts. So this will be a huge litmus test for the new administration in Washington is will Donald Trump and his new secretary of state, secretary of defense, will they say and do the right things to make sure that deterrence is being affected

vis-a-vis Taiwan and its chip manufacturing capability? Rachel, you're at the center of it all right now. Washington, D.C. Do you have a view or a feeling about how Donald Trump will handle that when that crucial moment comes for him to make a decision about this? You know, he loves his relationship with President Xi. So how do you see this rolling out? Well, he does, but they didn't part on good terms at the end of the Trump administration.

Right? You know, the start of 2020, not only was the beginning of COVID and that scramble Bessam was just talking about, but it was also when they signed what the phrase one trade deal where China agreed they were going to buy all sorts of US products in exchange for lifting tariffs. And by the end of it all landed on very poor terms. So I do think, you know, one of the things Trump has pledged on on day one is tariffs on China, maybe won't be day one, but it'll be pretty soon. And I think that question mark not only of what's the signal sent over Taiwan,

but also other hotspots in Asia. And the Biden, if anything, I think we're already on steroids in terms of focusing on using economic warfare and tools to support these supply chains. One of the big questions going forward is going to be the balance between protecting existing keynotes in semiconductors and technology and the US focus to try to bring more of that production home, right?

The Biden administration, supported by Congress, allocated a lot of money to convince TSMC and other producers to produce in the United States. Secretary of the House Johnson recently said, maybe we'll cancel that. We'll use the money for something else. So I think this is going to be a key question mark, and it's going to be a key area for allies of the US

like, like Canada to think about where do they fit into some of these, these supply chains. So there's geopolitics and national security risks, but economic security, economic growth, reshoring these, these economic imperatives are also part of the picture now. And it's, I think a little, and I think that Donald Trump's penchant for deal making, for negotiating, for threatening tariffs, for threatening restrictions, makes him a harder one to predict, perhaps.

But we're already seeing a US administration that is very fixated and focused on these supply chains. And I don't think that's going to change. BESMA, Canada came up with that answer. So let me follow up with you on that. Federal government made a decision to get rid of TikTok last week. They're going to send them home. Big deal, little deal.

What do you think? It's interesting, certainly. I mean, look, I think what we've seen in the past few years and thinking about Technology as a risk is a big question. There are absolutely national security issues without a doubt and I think you know there is some Reason for us to have a lot of concerns about what were illegal technology transfer to a lot of these countries And stealing I mean that that's what it was. It was not it was not sort of sign the dotted line It was really stolen from signed on the dotted line. It was really stolen from us.

And we continue to see that as a real threat. So it's understandable. But the challenge here is that we've heard too often, and I think the Americans have put this kind of aptly, this idea of having a small yard high fence. And the idea was we're not trying to stop all globalization because that's just not doable. We know that's not the case.

But what we're trying to do is really focus on really specific things. And ironically, chips is just one of the many great things. We're seeing that in solar, we're seeing that in EV, a number of other technologies. But the problem is you come to someone like Donald Trump coming to power, you know, does not know what that concept entails. He really sees not just a big, big yard, tall fences, and lots of bravado. And so anything can happen.

And the Chinese have been working vehemently to try to really increase their capacity, particularly in the semiconductor space, because that's not only those consumer goods that I talked about, but it's really the core of artificial intelligence. If they're going to succeed in the next wave of all things from not just military, but also civilian use, they're going to succeed in the next wave of all things from just not just

military but also civilian use, they really need to be ahead of the game in all things AI. And so that really is a big part of it. And I think what we're going to see with Trump coming to power is that bull of the China shop approach again. And so the Chinese are going to be even more worried now, but what's next? Right? What next are the Americans going to bring in to put those tariff wars in? So again, TikTok, it's just tip of the iceberg. And too often I think we are looking at some of these applications with a lot of suspicion. I don't know how much TikTok really is of great national security value. Certainly, Gio, I'm not-

Can you have it? No, I don't have it. I don't have it personally. We're banned from having it here, too. Well, look, I mean, one of the things on that is the location services, right? It tells you where you are. And there's something really worrisome about the algorithm of TikTok. It's not clear.

You know, some of the other social media platforms are more clear about the kind of algorithm that's given to you. That's not the case with TikTok. And just one last thing, really interesting. In China, ByteDance, the equivalent, there it's all about bettering yourself. The entire content and algorithm that's being pushed for the average young person,

a TikTok user, ByteDance in China, is about how to be a better person, how to be smarter, how to work harder. That's not the case that what we're having here in Canada and the West. So there's something really fundamentally odd about that. And back to disinformation using cyber cognitive warfare, you can't help but wonder what is the Chinese real strategy

here in pushing this kind of nonsense content that we see in TikTok today. George, nonsense, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I hear you. This one for you, George, is it fair to say that these technological rivalries are broadly divided by, I guess, the countries promoting liberal, human rights centric governance models versus those deploying technology to support authoritarianism? Can we sort of break it down in that way? Yeah, and that's precisely the frame that I used in the book. I think there's actually real value for people to understand what's going on by thinking about the democracies and the kinds of rules that we have, the

commitment to human rights, commitment to the rule of law, which do not exist in China currently, they do not exist in Russia. So just actually to meld your latest question with the TikTok one, I'm not on TikTok. I go on it periodically for research purposes. And if you put in your request for information on democracy, you'll get 15 short videos, 12 of which are absolute, pure Beijing propaganda. And what I say in my book is going to happen in the next few weeks. 12 of which are absolute pure Beijing propaganda.

And what I say in my book is going to happen, and I see it happening every day, is a decoupling of the technological infrastructure of the world into, to use your earlier phrase a second ago, a democracy oriented tech ecosystem and an autocracy tech ecosystem. And just as you cannot get a whole raft of democracy type internet platforms in China, we should not be having TikTok in Canada, in the United States, in Europe. And I totally agree with Bessma's point about geolocation. The other danger in TikTok beyond the propaganda and the geolocation is there is a constant stream of data going back to China, potentially. They say they've got it offshore somewhere in Singapore, but potentially to China. And it's the same with EV cars from China. To pick up on on Bessma's earlier phrase,

anything that's smart creates a data trail. Consumers in the democracies should not have their data exposed to access by oppressive autocratic governments. So yes, there will be this decoupling just at the technological level. You'll still be able to get all sorts of goods, merchandise, and Canadian tire, and Walmart, and so on. But when it comes to technology and smart devices, unfortunately, we have to separate the world now. I wonder, Rachel, whether you think we have the right either regulations or protocols

or whatever in place to, I guess, enjoy and accelerate the benefits of what we're talking about here and mitigate against the risks that some of these new technologies present. What do you think? I think we need to get the balance right. And in some ways, the this to the TikTok ban of last week that we've been talking about is an example of where it's really tough to do it. I think Bessam and George both highlighted the risks. But what's notable from the new rule, as I understand it, is that the marketing operations in Canada that added jobs in Canada has been what's banned. And Canadians can still download TikTok. They can still use it. So the data security, the data tracking elements are still present. Right now, I mean, and that's a government balancing act. I anticipate around not wanting to take something away from Canadians that people

are deriving value and comfort from. Right. But I think it's, but it is an example of how difficult that is. What, you know, George's point about data and the data trail is really important. And this is something where I think even democracies differ in what they think the right rules are. Canada and European countries are among those

that have pushed more for data localization than in the United States. The US now is protecting bulk sales of its data to adversarial states like China, Russia, and Iran. But in a sense, the very large economic imperative of US tech companies meant that it probably wasn't the same concern. In a sense, there was a pushback. So I think we need to, you know, there are more tools that we need. And I do think liberal democracies and others need to think about collectively working on some of these tools, so that there's not more vulnerabilities and fragmentation

in these. No one is going to be able to do that. So, the good thing is I think there's a greater understanding of some of the risks and the opportunities here. And I think that's something that we need to think about. And I think that's something that we need to think about. And I think that's something that we need to think about. And I think that's something that we need to think about. And I think that's something that we need to think about. And I think that's something that we need to think about.

And I think that's something that we need to think about those those trade-offs. So the good thing is I think there's a greater understanding Of some of the risks and the opportunities here The challenge is how to you know how to continue to grow these industries while also not opening up to Critical infrastructure damage and other vulnerabilities now with with the federal government asking TikTok to leave, that is going to result in some job loss. I think there's a few hundred people in Vancouver who are going to lose their jobs as a result of this. But I guess the suggestion is we are in an era when politics, you'll forgive the use of this word, Trump's economics every time.

Is that right? I agree. As a political scientist, we've seen that from the beginning of time. We do think it's an important part of it. Absolutely. And it's not just, I think, the jobs in Vancouver, as you noted, but also the content creators and the businesses that increasingly lean on having TikTok there.

I mean, there's been a real outcry from, I think, much of the content creator community or influencers of how valuable TikTok is, let alone the tweens that I know that are going to be really upset about this being pulled. It is an issue. It certainly is an issue. But I think there are some national security concerns that need to be discussed in more debated conversations about how much do we rely on these really important platforms, what they do. I think in terms of thinking about shaping public opinions, it can't be really left in the hands of countries that we don't see sharing our values. I play hockey with a guy who was talking to me in the dressing room about this this morning, and he said 350 people in Vancouver are going to lose their jobs.

This is a dumb decision by the government of Canada. Does he simply have to appreciate that he's in the middle of a global chess game right now? And tough luck? I think we're going to see a lot more of this happening, frankly, and I think it's going to be a wake-up call because, again, Canadians have been generally a bit naive on this. We don't think someone's trying to... Why would they want to attack us? Why would they want to know this information about us?

We're so nice, right? We're so nice. Who would want to do that? But I think this is really gonna open our eyes because everything in terms of our connection, our connectivity online has now become a potential weapon. You know, it is the baby steps toward cognitive warfare. It's really scary and it sounds almost sci-fi,

but that error is here nowadays. Having said all that though, Bessma, I mean, we're not going to completely decouple our relationships from China over TikTok, or for that matter, over anythingma, I mean we're not going to completely decouple our relationships from China over TikTok or for that matter over anything else, are we? I mean that's not in the cards, is it? You know, we can't. I mean I think that there's this mythology that somehow we can have you know a world without this integration and I think it's just too far gone. I mean there are certain things that we can do better at.

I think we need to improve our digital literacy. We can improve our understanding of privacy, which at the core of this, we spend too much time just saying, I agree, I agree, I agree, to all of those conditions that are before. So we download an app, we just say, I agree, but we don't look at the fine print. And the fine print, if you read it, is pretty terrible

in terms of what you're giving away, in terms of your privacy, it's your data. And that's why the Europeans have put in such really strict rules on this with the GDPR. Really helpful. But we Canadians, I think, are too naive in that. We just think, oh, what's this? Facetune is a great example of that. This app that was looking at our face to tell us what we look like when we're in 20, 30

years from now. Well, that was absolutely a Russian way of collecting data at our face to tell us what we looked like when we were in 20, 30 years from now. Well, that was absolutely a Russian way of collecting data about our face. And this is really dangerous for all of the facial recognition technology that is out there, for the programming, for all of the AI systems that they have. I mean, you can just see where it can be weaponized

in a way that we have been, as consumers, quite honestly, too naive about. George, I wonder whether you think Canadian businesses traditionally think deeply at all about geopolitics? Well, right now, they all need to be thinking very, very seriously about what's euphemistically called a Taiwan stra straight contingency. What happens if China does move militarily against Taiwan? So if you have any supply chain emanating from or coming through Taiwan,

and beyond semiconductor chips, Taiwan makes a lot of other products. The flat panel displays, the Kindle reader, the Kobo reader, like a lot of those products come out of Taiwan. So you've got to think through, well, do I have a second source? Do I move some production to Malaysia or Mexico? But then you also need, frankly, a China strategy, because if China moves on Taiwan, and if Trump does move to defend Taiwan, and I think Japan will be there as well, you know, the best war games tell us that a lot of soldiers are going to die very, very quickly, unfortunately. And when body bags start going back to the states,

that's when you'll get the full decoupling of trade between China and the democracies. And if you're a Canadian importer of whatever product, even a very low tech product, and your sole source of supply is China at that point, you're gonna be hurting. And BessMA's reference to COVID teaching us some of these lessons, you know, those lessons really need to be learned hard now,

because frankly, I think the next two years could be critical for some activity in Asia that impacts adversely those supply chains. So you've got to think it through now. George, you didn't see this, but in the midst of that answer, Bessma started shaking her head. And that always catches my attention. So what was the head shake about?

I don't think Trump is defending Taiwan. Absolutely not. He's not gonna. No, and I think actually we've accelerated the possibility that China will actually do something in Taiwan because, you know, Taiwan was Taiwan because Taiwan was called at one point because of its preeminence role, as George pointed out in the semiconductor industry, that it had a silicon shield by virtue of what it does.

But ironically, what we've seen under the Biden administration with the Chips Act is really make China force it to accelerate its production and its knowledge of how to fabricate them themselves. So what we have today, in fact, is less reason. I mean, the Silicon Shield wasn't just about the world worrying about Taiwan. Even China was dependent on Taiwan for those chips. It's no longer the case. It's broken through already and is able to do that on its own. And so I think the probability of China attacking is higher than it was before the Chips Act.

And I think Trump as an actor is not going to run to defend Taiwan. I really don't think he's interested. Certainly, especially if the Middle East gets hot and Ukraine gets hot, this is the furthest thing, I think, from his mind. In which case, Rachel, as Canadian businesses try to consider their futures and how events a half a world away can have an impact on them, how incumbent is it upon them

to start thinking more geopolitically about this world and how they run their affairs? I think it's essential, both in the Taiwan contingency we've been talking about, but I think Canadian businesses have already had to think about, you know, could products they're producing now end up in Russia, right? Could they end up in military and drones in Iran? So, I do think there's been this wake-up call, you know, over the last several years that around the world, Canadian businesses, other

businesses, they have to pay attention to their supplier's supplier and their buyer's buyer. Canada has brought in forced labor restrictions. The enforcement is a lot weaker, perhaps, and other challenges than the sort of similar measures in the United States and in Europe. But I do think that businesses are being forced to really understand their supply chains and to make sure they're not running afoul of some of these rules. And, you know, I think George highlighted very well the risks of the US, you know, sort of the US-China, you know, competition in that context. I think even before you start talking about body bags,

that we could see economic restrictions, we could see unilateral sanctions, we could see other measures that might impair Canadian businesses getting access to their materials. And if you're a business that thinks, oh, I don't import anything directly from China, I'm in the clear, or I don't import from Taiwan, I'm in the clear, that's not the case, right?

That's where maybe something you're buying from Vietnam has components, has chips that are coming from these other countries. And a net result of both tariffs and these other supply chain issues we've been talking about has been a redirection of trade, sort of maybe increasing complexity of trade that we've seen throughout Asia and through other intermediary countries. And so it's something businesses themselves need to use and collect a lot more data about their supply chains and make sure that they're not just buying goods from two different factories that happen to be part of the same supply chain.

And so that's something we're investing in that data is going to be more important. Ten years ago, maybe if you were in the defense industry, you paid attention to things like export controls. That is not a luxury that people have anymore. Well, Bessma, give some advice to us here, because if you're dealing, let's say you're a corporate executive or you're on a board somewhere, and geopolitics is nothing that has ever been on your radar screen or under your consideration as you do your job, how do you even begin to realize we're living in a new world now? Well, I'll make a plug. Plug away. Which is University of Waterloo is hosting a fantastic event with these good folks on the screen you see here on November 26

called Tech Horizons and it really is an opportunity for the business community to come here about how geopolitics matters and all things technology for the business community. So first things, that's one thing. I think really it's a matter of finding geopolitical specialists in your midst. I mean, you know, I think again, you know, we've brought in ESG folks to help us manage that from before, but now we need to think about geopolitics as part of the C-suite, if you will, that needs to be a part of the expertise we bring into corporations. And I think that really we need to have that geopolitics is not going anywhere because

it's much more turbulent, both from the bottom up and from the top down internationally. So I would really advise leaders to think about hiring some geopolitical experts in their midst. George, I'll give you the last word on this and or how well you think the Canadian government is doing at also taking all of this into account. Well, just first a shameless plug for my own book. I've now given two talks to Canadian pension funds centered around the book and the concepts in the book.

And so to Besma's point, if you feel like you're a little bit thin, either at the corporate board level or the senior management C-suite level, you've simply got to get up that curve. Because with respect, I disagree, as you heard a minute ago with Bessma on Trump and Taiwan, but that's the sort of discussion that that board absolutely has to have. And Rachel's point is that, you know, some of these supply chains are actually really difficult to get to the bottom of because things show up from places that, you know, are a big surprise.

The Canadian government, I don't want to get into a whole big topic about the unseriousness of Ottawa today on, for instance, defense spending, vis-a-vis Trump, we are going to learn just how unserious we've been. When minister Blair says that, oh, we'll get to the 2% NATO threshold, you've got to spend 2% of your GDP on defense. We'll get there by 2032. Something tells me that the new administration in Washington is not going to be satisfied with that answer.

So unfortunately Canada is going to get I think a very rude awakening on this. I want to thank the three of you for coming on to TVO tonight and helping us with this and a reminder November 26th is your conference at University of Waterloo? No, it's here in Toronto. It's here in Toronto. Absolutely. CIBC building. At the CIBC downtown.

Terrific. Okay. Thanks so much to George Takash, Senior Fellow at the Bill Graham Centre for Contemporary History at the U of T. That book once again, Cold War 2.0, Artificial Intelligence and the New Battle Between China, Russia and America. Rachel Ziemba, Adjunct Senior fellow, Center for a New American Security, lecturer, NYU's Center for Global Affairs,

and of course, Besmo Momani, professor of political science, University of Waterloo, senior fellow at CG. Thanks so much, everyone.