The recent newsletter snippets from Monocle, Bloomberg, Semafor and e-flux from May 8-9, 2025, offer a rich tapestry of contemporary global affairs, revealing intricate connections between politics, economics, technology, culture, and social dynamics. A reflective commentary on these dispatches necessitates an interdisciplinary lens, to illuminate their deeper implications.

These newsletters present a kaleidoscope of geopolitical maneuvers, technological triumphs and anxieties, cultural stewardship, and design as social praxis. Across their different sections—such as from “The Gulf” to “Beyond the Headlines”—we witness the interplay of hard and soft power, the political economy of innovation, and the reassertion of collective responsibility in both built and financial environments.

Thanks for reading The Open Access Blogs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The “Opinion: The Gulf” section, penned by David Kaufman, highlights the strategic maneuvers of the Trump administration in the Middle East, particularly its aim to integrate Riyadh into the Abraham Accords. This initiative, intended to foster regional economic integration and serve as a bulwark against Iran, reflects a complex geopolitical calculus where “peace” is pursued through a blend of diplomacy and “tough talk”. The ongoing tensions between Israel and Gaza, the US truce with the Houthis that excludes Israel, and negotiations with Iran, all underscore the intricate and often contradictory nature of international relations.

This dynamic mirrors the concept of “Realpolitik”, a foreign policy driven by pragmatic considerations of power and national interest rather than ideology or ethics. As Hans Morgenthau, a seminal figure in classical realism, argued in Politics Among Nations, states are primarily motivated by power and the pursuit of their own security in an anarchic international system (Morgenthau, 1948). Trump’s “fluid and elusive” motivations resonate with Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, where a ruler must be adaptable and willing to employ both “the fox and the lion” – cunning and force – to maintain power and achieve objectives. The exclusion of Israel from the US-Houthi truce can be seen as a pragmatic move to de-escalate one conflict, even if it alienates an ally, demonstrating the prioritizing of immediate strategic gains over long-term alliance cohesion.

David Kaufman’s reflection on Trump’s prospective Gulf tour underscores the tension between coercion and attraction in U.S. Middle East policy. On one hand, sabre-rattling against Tehran and threats toward Hamas evoke Clausewitzian logics of war (Clausewitz, 1832/1984), while on the other, the Abraham Accords’ economic opening gestures toward Joseph Nye’s notion of soft power—the capacity to shape others’ preferences via attraction rather than coercion (Nye, 2008). The absence of Riyadh from the original accords is cast not simply as a diplomatic lacuna but as a symbol of an incomplete hegemonic project; Trump’s “very, very big announcement” promises to fuse security with commerce, echoing Gramsci’s insight that “civil society” institutions (here, trade pacts) underpin coercive statecraft (Gramsci, 1971). Yet one must ask whether economic integration can endure amid the asymmetric vulnerabilities revealed by recent Houthi–Israel–U.S. skirmishes, or whether it merely papered over deeper sectarian and postcolonial fault lines (Said, 1978).

The section on “South Korea & Canada” in “Defence” further exemplifies the shifting global order. South Korea’s bold pitch to Canada for defense equipment, leveraging a recent defense pact and capitalizing on Ottawa’s desire to reduce reliance on US manufacturers, indicates a diversification of alliances and a rebalancing of power. This “waning US influence”, prompted by “Trump administration’s trade and defence policies”, suggests a move towards a more multipolar world, where middle powers are asserting their agency and seeking new strategic partnerships. This aligns with theories of neoliberal institutionalism, which acknowledge the persistence of state self-interest but emphasize the role of international institutions and economic interdependence in fostering cooperation and shaping state behavior (Keohane & Nye, 1977). The defense deals, with their emphasis on establishing maintenance facilities in Canada, also speak to the economic implications of defense partnerships, moving beyond simple transactions to deeper industrial collaboration.

The South Korea–Canada defence pitches—and Embraer’s tariff resilience—illustrate the globalization of military-industrial complexes and the strategic repositioning of mid-sized powers. Hanwha’s bid for Canadian submarines and howitzers not only seeks market share but also to embed Korean capital and labor within Canadian sites, reflecting Harvey’s “spatial fix” whereby capital resolves crises through geographic expansion (Harvey, 1982). Similarly, Embraer’s bullishness under tariff pressure exemplifies what Schumpeter termed “creative destruction”: adversity spurs corporate innovation and diversification (Schumpeter, 1942). Yet these developments also raise questions of democratic accountability: who governs the corridors of power when defense contracts become entangled with national economic sovereignty?

The “Q&A: Oliver Moody” discussing the Baltic region and the Russian threat underscores the enduring relevance of geopolitical fault lines and the concept of “front-line states”. Moody’s assertion that the “concept of the front line is almost obsolete in an age of long-range missiles, cyberattacks and hybrid warfare” highlights the evolving nature of conflict and the challenges to traditional notions of territorial security. This echoes Carl von Clausewitz’s On War, which, while focused on conventional warfare, emphasized the dynamic and often unpredictable nature of conflict. The “social contract” prevailing in these front-line states – “the understanding that a secure society is the most basic duty that a state has towards its citizens” – speaks to the fundamental political philosophy of figures like John Locke, who posited that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed and exist to protect their rights and security.

The newsletter presents several compelling insights into contemporary economic trends and the disruptive force of technology. The “In Print: Singapore” segment on “The Reserve” vault for bullion and precious metals reflects a deep-seated human inclination towards tangibility and security in uncertain times. Gregor Gregersen’s philosophy that “gold is intrinsically valuable – it doesn’t depend on the government” harks back to the historical role of gold as a store of value and a hedge against currency fluctuations and geopolitical instability. This resonates with the Austrian School of economics, which emphasizes the importance of sound money and distrusts government intervention in monetary policy. The design of The Reserve, described as “somewhere between Blade Runner and the Batcave”, also suggests a cultural shift where even traditionally discreet institutions are embracing a more conspicuous and branded aesthetic, blurring the lines between finance and spectacle.

In “In Print: Singapore,” The Reserve’s vault is at once a shrine to bullion and a spectacle of transparency. Its translucent onyx façade performs what Simmel identified as the mystification of money—the fetishization of abstract wealth—yet here inverted into hyper-visible rationality (Simmel, 1900/1990). By selling as well as storing gold, The Reserve collapses the separation between financial intermediation and physical custody, hinting at Weber’s “routinization of charisma” in modern banking practices (Weber, 1922/1978). Culturally, this vault enacts a baroque pageantry reminiscent of Piranesi’s “Carceri” etchings, evoking both awe and disquiet at the limits of human mastery over material value.

The “Another Tipping Point for Renewables” and the discussion of China’s economic stimulus and US trade deals highlight the interplay of economic policy, technological innovation, and global trade. The economic viability of new renewable energy sources surpassing existing fossil fuel plants marks a significant shift towards a sustainable future, driven by technological advancements and economies of scale. This aligns with the principles of environmental economics, which seeks to integrate environmental concerns into economic decision-making. The ongoing trade tensions between the US and China, with their potential “economic pain from tariffs”, underscore the complexities of globalization and the challenges of managing inter-state economic competition. The Fed’s “wait-and-see stance” amidst trade uncertainty further illustrates the cautious approach of central banks in navigating a volatile global economic climate.

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a pervasive theme, from its threat to Google Search’s dominance to its mandated integration into education and the growing power of Elon Musk’s space enterprise. The potential erosion of Google’s search market share due to AI chatbots signifies a profound technological disruption, challenging established monopolies and redefining information access. The push for AI learning in schools, while aiming to prepare students for a future shaped by AI, also raises concerns about over-reliance on chatbots and a potential “undermining” of an “entire generation of learning”. This echoes philosophical debates on the nature of knowledge, intelligence, and the human-machine interface, as explored by thinkers like Alan Turing in his foundational work on computable numbers and artificial intelligence. The immense power amassed by Elon Musk through Starlink, giving him “more power over the human exchange of information than any previous person has ever enjoyed”, prompts reflection on the concentration of power in the hands of private individuals and the ethical implications of technological monopolies. This can be considered through the lens of techno-utopianism versus techno-dystopianism, where technology is seen as either a panacea for societal ills or a harbinger of new forms of control and inequality.

Beyond the hard news, the newsletter delves into rich cultural narratives and social commentaries, often expressed through the medium of art and architecture. The declaration of the Concorde 001 prototype as a “national treasure” by France is a fascinating example of how technological feats can transcend their functional purpose to become symbols of national pride and cultural heritage. Its placement alongside Monet’s The Water Lily Pond and Notre-Dame Cathedral highlights the interplay between engineering, aesthetics, and collective memory. This speaks to the concept of cultural memory, as articulated by Jan Assmann, where societies construct and maintain a shared understanding of their past through symbolic artifacts and practices.

The discussions around the Venice Biennale, particularly the Finnish Pavilion’s theme of “Architecture of Stewardship” and the broader Biennale’s focus on “sharing knowledge” and “dialogue”, offer profound social and theoretic insights. The concept of stewardship, defined as “collective responsibility for the built environment, carried across generations”, challenges the prevailing “throwaway mindset” and emphasizes the ethical obligation to preserve existing structures rather than constantly seeking the new. This resonates with the philosophical ideas of intergenerational justice and sustainability, urging present generations to consider the well-being of future generations. Ella Kaira and Matti Jänkälä’s argument that demolishing older buildings means “losing stories, skills and resources” aligns with the sociological concept of social capital, where networks and relationships embedded in physical spaces contribute to community cohesion and identity. The Biennale’s emphasis on dialogue and “tapping into the collective intelligence” reflects a move towards more inclusive and participatory design processes, a departure from the isolated “architect designed by committee” approach. This echoes the principles of participatory design, which emphasizes the involvement of end-users and stakeholders in the design process to create more relevant and effective solutions.

The Finnish Pavilion’s “Architecture of Stewardship” and Carlo Ratti’s hybrid knowledge brief invite us to see buildings as social anchors, aligning with Lefebvre’s triad of perceived, conceived, and lived space (Lefebvre, 1991). Ella Kaira and Matti Jänkälä’s emphasis on custodians—builders, cleaners, communities—resonates with Martin Heidegger’s notion of “dwelling” (Heidegger, 1951/1971): architecture as a manifestation of collective care, not mere aesthetics. This stewardship paradigm also parallels contemporary debates in environmental humanities about multi-species ethics and the “more-than-human” (Haraway, 2016), suggesting that built heritage must extend its custodianship to ecological contexts.

The exhibitions discussed, such as “Pervert or Detective?” by Reba Maybury and Lucy McKenzie, “Somos raíces” by Santiago Yahuarcani and Nereyda López, and Alison Nguyen’s “Prosthetic Memory”, delve into critical cultural and social issues. Maybury’s work, integrating her practice as a political dominatrix to “dismantle notions of authorship, masculinity, and labor”, challenges conventional power structures and gendered norms, engaging with feminist theory and the politics of representation. The exhibition “Somos raíces” by indigenous artists Santiago Yahuarcani and Nereyda López, which explores “indigenous cosmogonies based on orality, song, vision, practice, and communal resistance” and narrates “centuries of extractivism and violence”, offers a decolonial perspective, asserting the value of Indigenous knowledge and challenging dominant historical narratives. This aligns with the growing field of decolonial studies, which critiques the legacies of colonialism and seeks to center marginalized voices and epistemologies. Alison Nguyen’s “Prosthetic Memory,” referencing Allison Landberg’s concept of acquiring historical experiences through mass media, explores the mediated nature of memory and its vulnerability to censorship and manipulation. This work engages with theories of media studies and the constructed nature of reality, as well as the political control of information and narratives.

Finally, the passing of Joseph S. Nye, the political scientist who coined the term “soft power,” and the re-publication of his article in the newsletter, serves as a poignant reminder of the enduring intellectual contributions to understanding international relations. Nye’s concept that “soft power is the ability to affect others through attraction rather than coercion”, rooted in cultural appeal and shared values, provides a crucial lens for analyzing global influence beyond military might. His argument that neglecting soft power is a “strategic and analytical mistake” underscores the multifaceted nature of statecraft and the importance of cultural diplomacy in shaping global perceptions and outcomes. This is particularly relevant in a world marked by the resurgence of “hard power and coercion”, prompting a re-evaluation of the balance between these two forms of influence.

The brief obituary for Joseph S. Nye (“Soft Power”) reminds us that attraction is never merely ornamental; it is strategic. Nye’s formulation grew from Cold War dynamics but acquires fresh urgency as hybrid warfare and cyber-influence campaigns blur hard-soft distinctions (Nye, 2011). The newsletter’s broader narrative—linking trade talks, cultural exhibitions, and technological showcases—reveals an implicit competition of narratives: can the United States marshal its cultural industries, academic exchanges, and design pavilions as instruments of attraction? Or will coercive tariffs and military posturing undercut its soft-power reservoir?

In conclusion, the newsletter snippets, individually and collectively, offer a compelling snapshot of the contemporary world, grappling with complex geopolitical shifts, technological disruptions, and evolving cultural and social landscapes. Their analysis through interdisciplinary lenses reveals the intricate interplay of power, economics, and human agency, inviting further reflection on the challenges and opportunities that define our time.

This newsletters, in their sweep from the Red Sea to Venice, from weaponry to vaults, from pavilions to public transport, offers a fascinating tableau of twenty-first-century power. Beyond the headlines, they invite reflection on how economic integration, cultural diplomacy, and architectural stewardship constitute mutually reinforcing facets of a post-Westphalian world. As readers and scholars, we are called to listen deeply—to the voices of curators, journalists, and policy-makers—and to interrogate the imaginaries they construct for peace, security, and belonging.

References

Clausewitz, C. v. (1984). On War (M. Howard & P. Paret, Eds. and Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1832)

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers.

Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.

Harvey, D. (1982). The Limits to Capital. University of Chicago Press.

Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, Language, Thought (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1951)

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Little, Brown.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Alfred A. Knopf.

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2008). The Powers to Lead. Oxford University Press.

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2011). The Future of Power. PublicAffairs.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper & Brothers.

Simmel, G. (1990). The Philosophy of Money (T. Bottomore & D. Frisby, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1900)

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Gemini, Google, Alphabet, tools (May 12, 2025). The featured image is generated in Canva (May 12, 2025).]

[Support the Open Economics Blog: https://ko-fi.com/theopenaccessblogs.]

Thanks for reading The Open Access Blogs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.