Is ‘globalization’ going away? New alliances fuse nationalism with regionalism

Globalization is receding into history almost as though it had been a passing fad. Actually much more than a fad, it was the dominant force in relations between the United States and the rest of the world for much of the late 20th century. Globalization meant an end to, or huge reduction in, trade barriers, tariffs, and differences predicated upon narrow national, geographic and ethnic interests. 

It wasn’t really until the dawn of the 21st century, as the influence of billionaire George Soros in trying to spread globalization became widely apparent, that severe doubts arose about the efficacy and wisdom of a global system in which national barriers were torn down.

By now, the trend is moving in the opposite direction. A major factor is concern about China. The fact is that China has an incredibly high trade surplus with the United States and other countries. No doubt that surplus is a major reason why China’s President Xi Jinping hesitates to deepen the confrontation with America and its northeast Asian allies, South Korea and Japan. 

Directly related to his hesitancy is Taiwan. Much as Xi would like to order an invasion of the democratic island province, he does not want to risk a regional conflict with the nations that in large measure account for China’s rise as the world’s second richest economic power after the United States. 

Moreover, Xi is assumed to want to avoid another war on the Korean peninsula and would prefer that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, stick to rhetoric and missile tests. He certainly does not want North Korea firing missiles for real into South Korea and Japan, and the last thing he would advocate would be a nuclear war in which Kim made good on threats to unleash “tactical nukes” in their direction.

But the dynamics of the standoff in Asia may be changing. The United States is tiring of China’s expanding influence on American college campuses, in business investment, in inequities in trade. Compounding these problems is China’s burgeoning presence all around its periphery, from northeast Asia to the South China Sea and Southeast Asia, to the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East, and on to Europe and Africa. The sense is arising of a confrontation that could get much deeper, that might erupt in war, and surely will undermine nations seen as rivals and markets ripe for exploitation.

It’s against this background that Soros’ fantasy of an “Open Society,” a world without the kind of borders that impede trade and plunge nations into war, is no longer a dream even among many liberal intellectuals.

“The open society envisions a world in which everyone recognizes each other’s humanity and engages each other as equals,” writes Daniel Bessner of the University of Washington’s Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies. “If most people are scraping for the last pieces of an ever-shrinking pie, however, it is difficult to imagine how we can build the world in which Soros — and, indeed, many of us — would wish to live.”

So, if globalization, as many envisioned it, is ending, what’s replacing it? One answer for the United States is renewed emphasis on existing alliances and the rise of new groupings. Donald Trump, immediately after his inauguration as president in January 2017, withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a grouping that would have included, besides the U.S, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The failure of the TPP, however, has given way to other groupings that show the overwhelming importance of nationalism when fused with regionalism.

New beginnings, in place of the TPP, include the Quad — the U.S., Japan, Australia and India. It’s difficult to say how much substantive significance to attach to the Quad beyond flowery statements and assurances of cooperation, but China strongly objected to it after the relationship emerged in 2007. The Quad assumed greater importance after the breakdown of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and President Biden has pursued the Quad concept in meetings with the leaders of all four countries.

While Biden “has been actively engaged with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict,” writes Ashok Sanjjanhar of MENAFN (Middle East North Africa Financial Network), “he has not taken his eyes off the Indo-Pacific.”

The article cites four summit-level interactions over the past two years, including in-person meetings in Washington in September 2021 and in Tokyo in May 2022. “This attention to the Quad, which initially identified the fight against COVID-19 pandemic, emergent technologies and climate change as the principal areas of focus, is quite unprecedented,” says the article. It “demonstrates the commitment and resolve of the leaders of the four countries to strengthen their partnership to effectively push back against China’s growing expansionism and to ensure that the Quad emerges as a ‘force for global good.’”

The proof beyond the words would lie in a military alliance that stopped China from claiming the South China Sea as its own territorial waters and defended the region against Chinese encroachment. Biden in September 2021 announced the formation of an alliance called AUKUS for Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. The three bonded in what could be regarded as an anti-China pact. If war were to break out, they would cooperate militarily. AUKUS, as a key element in America’s Indo-Pacific strategy, went considerably beyond the friendly but overly vague rhetoric of the Quad.

Other groupings are also important. The U.S. has formed the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF), including 14 countries. The purposes are incredibly vague, but at least they show the desire to stand up against China. Adding substance to vague words, South Korea’s President Yoon Suk-yeol has endorsed an “Indo-Pacific Strategy” with the U.S. and Japan that calls for cooperation among them against North Korea’s nuclear threat.

The concept of globalization appears nowhere in any of these understandings, agreements or de facto alliances. The meaning is clear: Globalization is history. Now these nations must work together in regional pacts for nationalistic purposes, all with economic as well as military overtones.

Donald Kirk has been a journalist for more than 60 years, focusing much of his career on conflict in Asia and the Middle East, including as a correspondent for the Washington Star and Chicago Tribune. He currently is a freelance correspondent covering North and South Korea. He is the author of several books about Asian affairs.