The round of modern globalization that started in the early 1990s of the 20th century, due to the high degree of openness, rapid economic growth, and coverage of economies beyond any period in history, has formed “you are in me, and you are in me.” “The interdependent global village is called “super globalization.” But at present this kind of super globalization is encountering huge setbacks. The so-called “de-globalization”, “de-Chinaization” and “de-supply chain” not only occur at the level of global trade and investment, but also at the level of global industrial chains, supply chains and value chains. The international structure and economic order in the period of super globalization are being broken and reconstructed. Various forces are complex and full of strategic games.
From a set of data, we can see that super globalization is showing a trend of shrinking and regressing. The global per capita GDP growth rate was 2.7% from 1990 to 2001, rapidly rose to 8.8% from 2001 to 2008, and remained at about 2% from 2008 to 2019. In the next 5 to 10 years, this rate may drop below 2%. The comprehensive logistics revolution and the global supply chain management pattern formed by the super globalization driven by the information technology revolution in the 1990s have been shrinking since 2009, and the new crown epidemic has accelerated this momentum.
What is behind this contraction and regression? Another set of data, the evolution of the curve of China’s GDP as a proportion of the U.S. economy, gives us strong inspiration. In 1990, the global GDP of the United States accounted for 26.4%, China only accounted for 1.75%, and China’s GDP was equivalent to 6.62% of that of the United States. In 2001, China’s entry into the WTO, the US technology stock bubble burst and the “September 11” incident broke out, and China’s GDP accounted for The share of the U.S. economy rose to 12.66%; by 2009, this share rose to 35.31%; by 2019, the global share of the U.S. GDP had dropped to 24.75%, and China’s share had risen to 16.59%. China’s GDP was already equivalent to that of the U.S. 67%.
Professor Danny Roderick of Harvard University put forward the “globalization ternary paradox”, thinking that the super globalization that attempts to break the boundaries of the nation-state system will compress the domestic policy space and will lead to the ebb of globalization. Its theoretical framework reminds us that when countries in the world continue to transfer their own economic and political sovereignty in the face of openness and innovation, the global governance structure that undertakes this transfer of sovereignty has seen huge deficits.
There is a part of public opinion in the United States that the United States has promoted and promoted modern globalization, but has not fully enjoyed the dividends. Instead, China has become the biggest beneficiary in the opening of the global economy. These people are full of disappointment and begin to determine the order of globalization. There have been problems with the rules of globalization. China has relied on the so-called “free rider” and adopted “unfair competition” to seize the dividends that the United States deserves in globalization.
As the only superpower, the United States must not wait to “suffer”. It wants to change the global order and governance structure. On the one hand, it provoked a trade war on the grounds of “U.S. First”, demanding that the world’s major economies transfer their interests to the United States, and at the same time, it called for reshaping the world order through the so-called reciprocal openness and fair trade, otherwise it would “retire”. The group” threatens to engage in unilateralism.
Based on this mentality, since the outbreak of the international financial crisis in 2008, the Obama administration has set out to promote TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) negotiations, trying to re-establish rules and regulations for the global order based on US rules, and at the same time kick China. The process of reshaping the global rule system has forced China to join the multilateral rule system for the second time. After Trump took office in 2017, he further expanded the policy intention of “de-sinicization”, not only targeting China, but also other major trading partners of the United States. Maintaining the national interests of the United States became the sole purpose of foreign policy.
The current U.S. foreign policy is not just a single “de-sinicization”, but puts “de-globalization” above it, and “de-sinicization” has become an important part of the United States’ “de-globalization”. Under this strategic intent, the United States began to attack everywhere, and Japan, South Korea, Germany, Canada, and Mexico have all become the “targets of sanctions” for the United States’ reciprocal openness, fair trade, and “US priority.” According to the requirements of the United States, as open as the United States, these countries must be as open, and establish rules and regulations for the global order based on American standards, rules, and systems. However, with the strength of the United States as the only superpower in the world, countries under the same rules are bound to be at a disadvantage in the competition with the United States.
However, there are obvious differences between the intentions of “de-globalization” and “de-sinicization” in the United States. “Deglobalization” is a dispute between traditional free trade based on rules and modern fair trade based on reciprocity. The former is based on market economy, multilateral rules, and common interests, while the latter is based on U.S. priority, U.S. rules, and U.S. interests. The core is that the United States, as the sole superpower, is unwilling to assume responsibility for global governance and the supply of public goods.
The essence of “de-sinicization” is the struggle between a preserving power and an emerging power. In order to consolidate its global hegemony, the United States will always occupy the world’s top strategic thinking. First, the levy of tariffs will focus on cracking down on foreign-invested enterprises in China, and the supply chain must be driven out of China. Then launching a science and technology war, including Huawei, ZTE and other companies in the “entity list”, and then directing the focus of the game to the political and ideological fields, is out of competitive strategy rather than the original intention of the game.
Facing the complex and volatile international situation, how does China respond? This year, China’s comprehensive construction of a moderately prosperous society has come to an end, and a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country is about to begin. The creation of a new development pattern with the domestic cycle as the main body and the mutual promotion of the domestic and international dual cycles will begin a new era.
Facing the future, China must build a new higher-level open economic system and form a new pattern of comprehensive opening up. On the one hand, China will actively build and use the advantages of the domestic super-large-scale market and the advantages of a complete industrial system to improve the efficiency of domestic supply, demand, input, output, distribution, and circulation, and promote quality, efficiency, and power changes. On the other hand, China is definitely not building a closed domestic circulation system, nor is it extending to the domestic economy on the basis of participating in the international cycle, nor is it taking the initiative to “decouple” from the world economy under the new situation, but continue to promote Modern globalization moves forward. Promote the development of globalization of innovation, globalization of service, digital globalization, and humanistic globalization on the premise of ensuring domestic security and controllability.
From this perspective, the retrogression of super globalization is a basic fact. The advancement of new globalization is only the beginning. China’s globalization should deepen the East Asian production network and promote the transformation of East Asian production methods; it should focus on high-quality joint construction of the “Belt and Road”. “, adhering to the principle of extensive consultation, joint construction and sharing, solidly promote the construction of the “five links”, explore the establishment of innovative, coordinated, green, open, and shared cooperation mechanisms, and promote an open and inclusive globalization; it is necessary to strengthen the overall production network with the United States and Europe. Cooperation in all directions, unite all forces that can be united, and promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind.