Parag Khanna: "It's too late for a lot of things now".

m&k: Parag Khanna, in your latest book, *Move*, you outline five main factors driving global migration: demographic imbalances, political upheavals, economic crises, technology-driven disruption, and climate change. It seems that all of these factors are currently occurring simultaneously—and are intertwined. This has never happened before, has it?

Dr. Parag Khanna: In any case, I can’t recall a time in recent history when there were so many different places around the world at the same time from which more than a million refugees or asylum seekers each had to flee. Think of Myanmar and the Rohingya, the political collapse of Afghanistan last summer, Syria, of course, Yemen, Ukraine, and Venezuela. My field of expertise is political geography, so part of my job involves counting borders. We’ve never had as many borders in the world as we do today—but there are also more people than ever before crossing those borders—or at least trying to.

 

And there are more and more bloody, protracted conflicts over borders—such as the one in Ukraine, where a «frozen conflict» has turned into a terrible war.

I have spent a great deal of time examining so-called «frozen conflicts,» a term I view with great skepticism. There may be conflicts that we prefer to ignore as long as they are not resolved through violence. But as long as they remain unresolved, they are still powder kegs. An unresolved conflict always has the potential to escalate. In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have seen underlying geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West for years. This dates back to Putin’s rise to power and Russia’s alienation from our political system, to the invasion of Georgia in 2008, to NATO’s Bucharest Declaration that same year, and to the annexation of the Donbas and Crimea in 2014. Eastern Ukraine has long been a geopolitical flashpoint marked by violence, with occupied territories, disputed borders, fighting, and a regrettably high death toll over the years. While we haven’t been paying close attention for quite some time, that doesn’t mean nothing has been happening there.

 

You describe your work as political geography, and your writings and theories are characterized by a very refreshing pragmatism. In your opinion, what is the conflict in Ukraine «really» about on a meta-level?

In any case, this isn’t about ideology. It’s not about whether or not the world is divided into blocs between Western democracies and Eastern and Asian authoritarian states. In my opinion, all of that is just rhetoric. I can play this game of political theory just as well as anyone else. As someone with a Ph.D. in political science, I could easily play the role of a columnist and fill any opinion page with grand, sweeping statements. But—forgive me for being so blunt—it’s all utter nonsense. This war is primarily about territory, and it’s about resources. Geopolitics isn’t about how rhetorically brilliant and flowery you can present your arguments; geopolitics is about the relationship and interdependence of power, geography, and space. Unlike all those who view the war in Ukraine as an ideological rather than a territorial conflict, I would much rather see it as a territorial dispute than an ideological one. To put it simply: there are unresolved territorial issues in the Donbas—and Russia is prepared to go to war to resolve them.

 

Are we Europeans so shaken by this war partly because we thought that the forcible redrawing of borders was irrevocably a thing of the past?

In most parts of the world, there are still fundamental conflicts over unresolved border issues, but Europeans are reluctant to think about that. That’s because—in most cases—they believe they left all that behind them long ago. Although, I should remind you, France and England nearly came to blows in 2021 over fishing grounds. (laughs)

 

As an expert on the Asian region, how do you view China's role in the current situation?

There are two answers to that. I’d like to briefly touch on just one of them; it concerns the connection between the events in Ukraine and the situation in Taiwan. I think this is important for your readers, because many people in the West say: «China will be watching all of this very closely. Our actions toward Russia will influence China’s decision on how to proceed with Taiwan.» But I can tell you that this is very, very far from the truth. Thinking this way is simply an example of Eurocentrism. Relations between China and Taiwan have been highly complex and tense for more than a hundred years; it would be ridiculous to believe that Beijing would change its timeline for the «reunification» of Taiwan based on events in Europe. This claim alone shows how little people know about China; anyone who argues this way disqualifies themselves.

 

So how does China think?

The government in Beijing is playing for time. This is evident in a wide range of developments: For example, there are efforts to diversify Taiwan’s semiconductor supply chains. These are increasingly being manufactured in Japan, South Korea, India, Singapore, and even in the United States and Europe. What does this mean for the question you asked? Well, in just five years, Western companies’ dependence on Taiwan will have decreased noticeably. China won’t take any action in the coming years because it’s waiting until we no longer need Taiwan, so that we no longer need to defend it. But since we’re on the subject of Asia, one more thing about Russia…

 

You're welcome.

I’ve been saying for more than 15 years that Russia is part of North Asia. But no one living in Switzerland would describe Russia as a North Asian country, would they? They assume that Russia belongs to Europe. That’s understandable, because even within the United Nations framework, Russia is classified as a European country. Western institutions like the World Bank, the Olympic Committee… they’re all present there as well. But geographically speaking, Russia is simply part of North Asia. That’s why I’m convinced: Given the estrangement between Russia and Europe, the West’s ostracism of Russia—which is justified in many respects—and the country’s turn toward China, India, and Central Asia—we are not really witnessing a departure. Rather, we are witnessing a return of the Russians to the geopolitical stage where they belong.

It also marks a return—at least in the view of many analysts—to an unequal relationship between Russia and China, although it is clear that the Chinese are operating from a position of strength. Just because Russia is much weaker on paper does not mean it lacks asymmetric capabilities. Here’s an example: China has no influence whatsoever in the Arctic, but it needs the resources found there. Without cooperation with Russia, it has no access to those resources. So even in the face of theoretical asymmetry, a certain practical equality can exist. On the other hand, I also do not believe in this narrative of a Russian-Chinese alliance aimed at upending the world order.

 

Why?

No one trusts Russia, and no one trusts China. That means they don’t trust each other either. That’s why they can’t form an alliance in the traditional sense of the word. Do they need each other in many ways? Yes. Does Russia need China more than China needs Russia? Yes. But if Russia skillfully exploits its geographical advantages, it can counterbalance China’s power, at least to a certain extent.

Let’s move on to the topics of migration, climate change, and the sustainable economy. Despite the current influx of Ukrainian refugees, most Europeans generally believe that the «migration crisis» of 2015 and 2016 will not be repeated in the foreseeable future. I assume you would argue the opposite?

Let’s just take a look at the numbers. Currently, there are about four million refugees—most of them from Arab and African countries—in Turkey, in a sort of «limbo.» So, despite the dangerous circumstances, there are clearly enough people willing to make the journey to Europe; and a great many of them actually make it to Europe. What your continent needs, therefore, is a proactive and sustainable migration strategy. Politicians must publicly declare: «Young people are workers. We need workers. We need them to maintain our infrastructure. We need people who can earn money and pay taxes, who can care for the elderly, who can help us maintain our high standard of living, and who can ensure that the population does not shrink.» I actually believe that European politicians largely already think this way and base their actions on these premises, but it’s hardly ever discussed. The center-left coalition in Germany, Macron in France… these are not populists, but pragmatists when it comes to migration. Whether their quiet pragmatism will lead people in their countries to accept migration not only intellectually but also emotionally is another question.

 

But latent—or even overt—xenophobia will clearly be a problem in many countries when it comes to developing a more sustainable migration strategy.

Twitter would have us believe that populism, nationalism, and xenophobia are global megatrends. But reality shows us that Joe Biden is the President of the United States of America, not Donald Trump—and that about one million new immigrants will come to America this year. Canada isn’t governed by anyone even remotely comparable to Trump, is it? And it’s the most liberal country in the world when it comes to immigration. The United Kingdom has reversed the strict immigration policies of the immediate post-Brexit era; and I’ve already mentioned the pragmatism of Germany and France… so how can anyone seriously claim that the West has succumbed to xenophobic populism?! Is that populism an intellectual threat? Yes. Is it dangerous? Yes. Are there legitimate concerns that need to be addressed? Yes. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the facts I mentioned earlier either.

There have never been so many borders in the world. But there have also never been so many people crossing them.

 

What might a proactive, sustainable migration strategy for Europe look like?

As I said before, I think that Europe is actually doing the right thing—albeit reactively and sometimes reluctantly. But it’s not being proactive. Because, of course, the Greek, Spanish, and Italian coast guards are still shooting at migrants and killing them. That’s just terrible! I believe these people should be brought ashore so they can work on farms in Greece! It’s certainly possible to implement a very comprehensive assimilation policy: For example, I consider it essential that every migrant who comes to a European country learn the language of that country. Then these people should be taught all the skills they need to perform important professions and social roles. And this isn’t even a purely altruistic viewpoint, but rather a utilitarian one: Europe symbolizes the highest standard of civilized life, yet you also have the highest number of people dying alone in their homes. And that’s because no one comes to visit them or take care of them. And that, in turn, I do not consider civilized at all. I find it repulsive, barbaric, and degrading. So if Europe wants to remain the place that I—like billions of people worldwide—admire as the most civilized region of all, then you should at least take care of your elderly; you should maintain your infrastructure and prepare for demographic change. If you don’t have the necessary resources to do so, then simply bring people into your countries who can fill the gaps.

 

You write extensively and in depth about climate change as one of the main causes of migration. We know that we humans have caused a significant portion of global warming through our own actions. When we talk about creating a more sustainable, better future—how can we ensure that we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past?

I tend to believe that climate change is already much worse than we care to admit; perhaps even much worse than we could ever know. We use measurements and scales to delude ourselves into thinking we’re in control, but such a large volume of emissions isn’t even being properly tracked! And we’re ignoring the complex chain reactions of the greenhouse effect that have already been set in motion. I therefore believe that we must now focus on adaptation. Mitigation through emissions reduction, decarbonization of industry… that’s important, but it won’t turn back the clock. The climate is a very complex system that is constantly changing, and it will never be the same as it used to be. In a region suffering from drought today, the wells won’t magically start gushing again just because emissions from factories in America or China are halted. The region in Africa where it has stopped raining? I’m sorry, but no matter how many net-zero targets you set, no matter how many Paris Agreements you adopt, no matter how many documents you sign… it won’t rain there anymore!

»Mitigation is no longer enough; adaptation is what's needed": Parag Khanna on climate change.

 

So is the motto now: Adaptation over mitigation?

Yes. Essentially, my work is primarily about adaptation—that is, adjusting: adjusting to war, to the demographic plateau in the Western world, adjusting to economic crises, to climate change. How will today’s young people adapt to the complexities of tomorrow? Where will they live, what will they do? That is the fundamental challenge facing our civilization that we must confront. And then we must ask ourselves: What can we do to help young people?

 

Of course, I hope you'll answer this question…

There are two ways to help young people secure their future: We can transport them to areas with remaining resources, or we can provide them with the technologies they need to continue living in a changing environment. So: Either we resettle Africans, Arabs, and Asians in Europe, Russia, or Canada—or we start exporting technologies to the places where people need them. Build dams for them, provide them with seawater desalination plants, dig canals on their farmland, and supply them with genetically modified seeds! Facilitate migration or share technology: If you choose either of these strategies—no matter which one—you’re a good person. You’ll then be doing something good for the world, deserving of support, financial aid, and media attention. And if you decide to do nothing, then—at least from a sustainability perspective—you’re… absolutely useless. That may sound harsh, but when it comes to saving humanity, that’s the bottom line.

---

Parag Khanna is a leading global strategy consultant, world traveler, and bestselling author. He is the founder and managing partner of FutureMap, a consulting firm that helps clients make strategic decisions based on data and scenarios. Khanna, who studied at Georgetown and earned his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics, is listed by *Esquire* magazine as one of the «75 Most Influential People of the 21st Century.».

For more information about the person we interviewed, please visit online.