zeit.de
Clash over US Tariffs Reveals Deep Divisions on Future of Globalization
Sven Giegold and Lars Feld debate the impacts of US tariffs on global trade, highlighting differing views on the role of social and ecological standards in trade agreements and the future of globalization; Giegold emphasizes the need for regulation while Feld cautions against protectionism and moralism.
- What are the immediate economic consequences of the US tariff policy, and how does it differ from previous critiques of globalization?
- The US's imposition of tariffs, described as "deglobalization from above" by Sven Giegold, is causing widespread economic hardship, particularly if the situation escalates. This differs from Attac's goals, which focused on advocating for regulated globalization, not isolationism. Lars Feld, while agreeing on a rule-based global order, highlights the current dominance of nationalism and protectionism.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the current protectionist trends for global cooperation on critical issues like climate change and human rights?
- The future of globalization hinges on resolving the conflict between economic liberalization and social/environmental responsibility. The current trend towards protectionism and nationalism threatens global cooperation on issues like climate change. The EU's Mercosur agreement shows the potential for incorporating environmental standards, but stronger commitments are needed to achieve sustainable globalization.
- How do the differing viewpoints of Giegold and Feld on the role of social and ecological standards in trade agreements reflect broader debates about globalization?
- The disagreement between Giegold and Feld centers on the role of social and ecological standards in trade agreements. Giegold argues that the lack of such standards in past agreements like TTIP led to unsustainable globalization. Feld criticizes this as "moralism", emphasizing the need to respect differing national preferences. This highlights a fundamental conflict between prioritizing economic growth and incorporating social and environmental concerns in global trade.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article subtly favors Giegold's perspective. While presenting both sides, the article's introductory question implicitly aligns with Giegold's critique of Trump's trade policies. Furthermore, Giegold's concerns regarding social and environmental impacts are given more detailed elaboration than Feld's counterarguments. The sequencing of arguments, with Giegold's points coming first and more expansively, influences the reader's initial impression.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, though Feld's characterization of Giegold's position as "moralism" carries a slightly negative connotation. This could be seen as a loaded term, implying that Giegold's concerns are based on subjective values rather than objective reasoning. A more neutral term, such as "values-based approach," might be considered.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the perspectives of Giegold and Feld, potentially omitting other relevant viewpoints on globalization and trade. There is no mention of perspectives from developing nations significantly impacted by trade policies, nor are there counterarguments to the claims made by either interviewee. The omission of these perspectives limits the reader's ability to form a complete understanding of the complexities of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as solely between those who advocate for unregulated globalization and those who favor protectionism. It overlooks the possibility of nuanced approaches that incorporate global cooperation while also addressing social and environmental concerns. The debate between Giegold and Feld is presented as an eitheor situation, neglecting the spectrum of opinions and policy options that exist.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the negative impacts of Trump's tariffs and deglobalization, which disproportionately affect developing countries and exacerbate existing inequalities. The resulting job losses and economic hardship will likely worsen inequality between nations and within countries.