Post-globalization, what’s next for world trade?

|
Steve Helber/AP/File
The sun sets behind the Virginia International Gateway Marine terminal Dec. 1, 2021, in Norfolk, Virginia. The United States has accused China of failing to meet its commitments to the World Trade Organization. It says it will explore new ways to combat aggressive Chinese trade practices.
  • Quick Read
  • Deep Read ( 4 Min. )

With globalization in disrepute, how should the world’s trading powers set about fashioning a new set of rules and relationships? What might “Globalization 2.0” look like?

Today, the assumption that has upheld the U.S.-led economic order since the fall of the Soviet Union – that free trade is sacrosanct – is crumbling before a wave of protectionism. America itself is a big part of that wave, moving to secure its independence and shore up its strength in strategic areas of the 21st-century economy, such as top-end microchips and green manufacturing.

Why We Wrote This

A story focused on

Globalization, in disrepute, is on the retreat before protectionism. But free trade has underpinned the world economy for decades. What might a new framework look like?

But what is it that has powered growth for the past several decades? Ever freer trade. Hence the need for a new framework.

Washington has a longer-term interest in not seeing global commerce collapse altogether. Trade, as much as military issues, has been the glue holding U.S. alliances together worldwide. Reinforcing trade ties with friends could become a compelling U.S. national security interest. Washington will need their buy-in if its more muscular approach to China is going to succeed over time.

And Beijing knows full well that its prosperity depends on trade, the cornerstone of its rise to great power status.

But fashioning a new way forward will mean lowering the level of protectionist mistrust around the world. That will be a delicate task.

Two decades ago, a British prime minister surveyed a world jolted into questioning its old assumptions, institutions, and alliances, and summoned up a powerful metaphor.

“The kaleidoscope has been shaken,” he declared. “The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us.”

Tony Blair was speaking after the 9/11 attacks on America. But his words capture an equally daunting challenge now facing the United States and other world economic powers: how to reorder new trade rules and relationships from the shards of the old – and out-of-favor – orthodoxy of globalization.

Why We Wrote This

A story focused on

Globalization, in disrepute, is on the retreat before protectionism. But free trade has underpinned the world economy for decades. What might a new framework look like?

A kind of “Globalization 2.0.”

That is a particularly difficult task. The heyday of globalization – the China-powered 1990s and early 2000s growth spurt – is in the rearview mirror. Today, the assumption underlying the U.S.-led economic order since the fall of the Soviet Union, that free trade is sacrosanct, is crumbling before a wave of protectionism.

The U.S. is very much part of that wave, swollen in Washington by a bipartisan consensus that America must avoid ceding supremacy to China. That means securing U.S. independence and shoring up its strength in strategic areas of the 21st-century economy, such as top-end microchips and green manufacturing.

Here’s the conundrum, however. What has underpinned the world economy, and powered growth, for decades? Increasingly unfettered trade.

Darin Oswald/Idaho Statesman/AP/File
A Micron Technology Inc. employee moves through a clean room at an existing facility in Boise, Idaho, Sept. 12, 2022. A $15 billion, leading-edge microchip factory will begin construction soon near the Idaho-based chipmaker's existing East Boise plant.

A wholesale unraveling would risk a serious global economic slowdown. Yes, China would take a major hit. But so would America.

And U.S. allies in Europe and Asia are already airing their displeasure at President Joe Biden’s protectionist Inflation Reduction Act, which offers generous government subsidies to encourage green industries.

Thus the search for a workable new framework for international trade.

It’s a tall order, given the overriding weight of the adversarial relationship between the United States and China, the world’s two biggest economies.

It’s also clear that Globalization 2.0 would look very different from the original model.

That’s because the old order has come tumbling down not from a single, horrifying blow like 9/11, but from a serial battering.

It started after Beijing’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization, with signs that China’s trading relationship with the United States and the developed economies of Europe was decidedly unequal. It shifted a million jobs to lower-wage factories in China. Western companies hopeful of tapping into China’s domestic market found it skewed in favor of state-subsidized local competitors, and they were also pressured to part with their intellectual property.

Donald Stampfli/AP/File
Pierre Louis Girard, chairman of the meeting that admitted China to the World Trade Organization, opens the last session of meeting at the WTO's headquarters in Geneva on July 20, 2001.

Then came the 2008 financial crash: Globalization delivered global contagion.

And finally, a new series of jolts: a pandemic that wrought havoc on world supply chains; China’s lockdowns at home and its truculence toward Western trading partners critical of its policies; and the economic fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, such as rising energy and food costs.

It’s little wonder that many national governments, not just America’s, have been concentrating on protecting their own citizens’ and companies’ economic health.

There are also powerful economic, political and national security motives behind two of Washington’s most assertive new trade policies – its ban on sales to China of the means to produce the latest generation of microchips, and the package of nearly half-a-trillion dollars to subsidize U.S. domestic production of microchips, electric cars, and low-carbon energy.

The Biden administration has shown no signs of changing course on either policy, so European allies fearful that their own green-economy companies will chase U.S. subsidies may end up launching a subsidy package of their own to keep them at home.

Still, Washington has a longer-term interest in not seeing global commerce collapse altogether. Trade, as much as military issues, has been the glue holding U.S. alliances together worldwide. And Beijing knows full well that its prosperity depends on trade.

At last week’s annual World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davos, China’s vice premier, Liu He, dialed back Beijing’s traditional anti-Western rhetoric and reaffirmed his country’s determination to “open up the world.”

Chinatopix/AP/File
An employee works at a solar panel and solar equipment factory in Jiujiang in central China on Jan. 5, 2021. The Biden administration is seeking to strengthen the green manufacturing sector in the U.S. to reduce dependence on Chinese products.

Mr. Biden could well run into domestic headwinds on the two most obvious ways of using trade to cement America’s alliances – a comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union and rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade grouping it helped set up in Asia as a counterweight to Chinese influence.

Former President Donald Trump pulled America out of TPP. Many of his supporters in the Republican Party reject not only the U.S.-China embrace at the heart of the old globalization, but liberalized world trade in general.

Still, reinforcing trade ties with friends could become a compelling U.S. national security interest. Washington will need their buy-in if its more muscular approach to China is going to succeed over time.

And there may be a cautionary lesson in Prime Minister Blair’s appeal after 9/11.

With the kaleidoscope shaken, he felt the window for a coherent international response would not stay open for long. “This is a moment to seize,” he said. He set out an agenda that went beyond merely “punishing the guilty” and emphasizing causes such as social justice and economic advancement.

Yet that lofty vision was swallowed up by conflict on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq – a stark reminder of the challenges facing would-be architects of Globalization 2.0.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Post-globalization, what’s next for world trade?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2023/0126/Post-globalization-what-s-next-for-world-trade
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe