africa.chinadaily.com.cn
US Protectionism vs. China's Global Investment: A Defining Moment for Globalization
Global GDP expanded dramatically due to globalization, but recent US protectionist policies, like tariffs and the CHIPS Act, threaten this progress, while China invests heavily in global infrastructure via the Belt and Road Initiative and other programs to counter this trend.
- How have recent US economic policies impacted global growth and the progress of globalization?
- Global GDP surged from \$3 trillion in the 1970s to \$105 trillion in 2023, largely fueled by globalization. However, recent US policies, including tariffs and the CHIPS Act, have undermined this progress, diverting resources inward and harming global growth. China, in contrast, has invested heavily in infrastructure and trade via initiatives like the Belt and Road.
- What specific initiatives has China undertaken to promote globalization and bridge the infrastructure investment gap?
- The US, once a champion of globalization, has shifted to protectionist policies, impacting global value chains (70%+ of global trade). This, coupled with the massive \$5 trillion pandemic relief package and interest rate hikes, has negatively affected developing nations. China's proactive investments in infrastructure and trade aim to counteract this trend.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of a continued lack of cooperation between the US and China on global economic issues?
- The future of globalization hinges on US-China cooperation. Continued protectionism from the US, potentially exacerbated by a Trump presidency, threatens sustainable development goals and global economic stability. China's initiatives, while significant, cannot single-handedly fill the massive investment gap (estimated at \$4 trillion for developing countries to meet SDGs).
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames China's initiatives (BRI, AIIB, CIIE, etc.) very positively, highlighting their scale and potential benefits. In contrast, US policies are presented predominantly as negative and detrimental to globalization. The selection and sequencing of information emphasizes the positive aspects of China's role and the negative aspects of US actions, potentially shaping the reader's perception of each country's contribution to globalization.
Language Bias
While generally neutral, the article uses loaded language in describing US actions as a "vicious round of trade barriers, tariffs and sanctions" and referring to policies as "anti-globalization drive" and other similar descriptions that suggest negative intent or consequences. More neutral language could be used, such as "trade restrictions" or "policy shifts". The positive framing of Chinese initiatives uses similarly strong language, though it is presented as positive.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the US and China's roles in globalization, potentially omitting the perspectives and actions of other significant global players. The impact of globalization on less developed nations is mentioned briefly in the context of the negative effects of US policies, but a more in-depth analysis of its effects across various regions and income levels is missing. This omission limits the reader's ability to form a complete picture of globalization's impact.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between US anti-globalization policies and China's pro-globalization initiatives. It overlooks the complexities and nuances of global economic relations, implying that the US is solely responsible for hindering progress and China is the only proactive force. Other countries and factors are not given their due weight.