The Western belief that free trade would cause authoritarian states like China to liberalize has proven false. Instead, this policy created a powerful manufacturing competitor whose interests diverge from the West's. The current era of deglobalization is an unwinding of this flawed foundational premise of the post-war order.
Related Insights
The move toward a less efficient, more expensive global supply chain is not a failure but a strategic correction. Over-prioritizing efficiency created a dangerous dependency on China. Diversification, while costlier in the short term, is a fundamental principle of long-term risk management.
The post-1980s neoliberal consensus of small government and free trade is being replaced by a mercantilist approach. Governments, particularly the U.S., now actively intervene to protect domestic industries and secure geopolitical strength, treating trade as a zero-sum game. This represents a fundamental economic shift for investors.
From China's perspective, producing more than it needs and exporting at cutthroat prices is a strategic tool, not an economic problem. This form of industrial warfare is designed to weaken other nations' manufacturing bases, prioritizing geopolitical goals over profit.
The 1990s belief that economic liberalization would inevitably make China democratic provided ideological cover for policies that fueled its growth. This hubris, combined with corporate greed, allowed the US to facilitate the rise of its greatest geopolitical rival without achieving the expected political reforms.
Twenty years ago, globalization and open markets (geopolitical tailwinds) created new opportunities for businesses. Today, rising nationalism, trade barriers, and security concerns act as headwinds, creating obstacles and increasing the complexity of international operations.
Attempting to beat China by mimicking its state-controlled industrial policies is a strategic failure. This approach politicizes the economy, breeds inefficiency, and plays to China's strengths. The U.S. wins by leveraging its own core advantage: out-innovating and out-competing through a market-driven system.
The era of economic-led globalization is over. In the new world order, geopolitical interests are the primary driver of international relations. Economic instruments like tariffs and export restrictions are now used as levers to assert national interests, a fundamental shift from the US-centric view where the economy traditionally took the lead.
The shift away from the post-Cold War trade system started well before Trump. As early as 2009, the Obama administration recognized that the Doha Round framework was unworkable with China's economic model and began warning Beijing that the 'benign international environment' it relied on was at risk.
Globalism was highly successful, lifting millions from poverty. Its failure wasn't the concept itself, but the lack of strategic boundaries. By allowing critical supply chains (like microchips and steel) to move offshore for cost savings, nations sacrificed sovereignty and created vulnerabilities that are now causing a predictable backlash.
Recent trade talks deliberately sidestepped core geopolitical issues like Taiwan and the South China Sea. This highlights that economic agreements are merely treating symptoms. The fundamental problem is a geopolitical power struggle, which will continue to undermine any economic progress.
