europe.chinadaily.com.cn
US Retreat from Globalization Fuels Rise of Global South-Led Economic Order
The United States' retreat from globalization, driven by internal political shifts and economic anxieties, is creating a power vacuum filled by Global South nations, leading to a new multipolar global economic order characterized by alternative trade models and multilateral mechanisms.
- How is the US's withdrawal from globalization impacting global trade and governance structures?
- The US, once a champion of globalization, is now retreating due to perceived economic disadvantages and internal political shifts. This retreat is marked by protectionism, withdrawal from multilateral organizations, and a focus on bilateral deals, impacting global trade and governance. The resulting power vacuum is being filled by Global South nations.
- What are the underlying domestic factors contributing to the US's shift towards economic protectionism and deglobalization?
- The shift away from US-led globalization stems from growing US inequality, political polarization, and a perception that globalization disproportionately benefited other nations. This led to domestic policy changes prioritizing US interests, undermining multilateral systems and fueling a rise in economic nationalism. The consequences include increased global uncertainty and a reshaping of international relations.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of a multipolar global order driven by the Global South, and how might this affect global economic stability and power dynamics?
- The emergence of a new, Global South-driven globalization model, characterized by 'manufactured goods for resources' exchange and alternative multilateral mechanisms, is a direct consequence of the US's retreat. This shift could lead to a more multipolar world with potentially greater economic equity but also increased geopolitical competition and the possibility of fragmented trading blocs.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames the decline of US-led globalization as a primarily negative development for the US, emphasizing the country's internal struggles and the perceived unfairness of the previous system. This framing may bias the reader towards viewing the shift to a Global South-led model as a positive correction, without fully exploring potential downsides or complexities.
Language Bias
The language used sometimes employs loaded terms. For instance, describing the US as a "debt-driven financial power sustained by dollar hegemony rather than a genuine trading nation" carries a negative connotation. Similarly, phrases like "abused this dollar privilege" are value-laden. More neutral alternatives could be used, such as 'relied heavily on the dollar' and 'utilized the dollar's role in international finance'.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the US perspective and its relationship with globalization, potentially omitting perspectives from Global South countries beyond their stated support for a new globalization model. The impact of deglobalization on other developed nations besides the US is not discussed. The article also lacks specific examples of the 'manufactured goods for resources' model beyond general statements.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between the old US-led globalization model and the new model driven by the Global South. It oversimplifies the complexities of the global economic system and ignores the potential for hybrid models or continued interaction between the two systems. The characterization of the previous model as purely exploitative and the new model as purely equitable is an oversimplification.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the growing inequality within the US as a major factor contributing to the shift away from globalization. The US prioritized its own interests, leading to a neglect of equitable global distribution of benefits from globalization, thus exacerbating global inequality.