Proclaiming “Liberation Day” and the “end of globalization,” US President Donald Trump slapped a 10 per cent tariff on goods imported into the United States regardless of provenance. And this was just for starters. He then introduced a graduated tariff system, with rates varying for different countries and blocs. China faces the stiffest tariffs, amounting to 54 per cent and likely to increase. The EU, the US’ neighbors Canada and Mexico, and major trading partners such as South Korea and Vietnam follow close behind.
In taking these steps, Trump sharply deviated from the course of US history. The first eight decades of the 20th century witnessed the US’ entry onto the international stage and its expanding global engagement in both hot and cold wars. The leadership of this trajectory alternated between Democratic and Republican administrations, from Theodore Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. The next quarter-century, starting in the 1990s, was characterized by US-led globalization. This era began with Republican President George H W Bush and Democratic President Bill Clinton. Their administrations aimed to reshape the world order following the collapse of the Soviet Union, reorder Europe (especially the Balkans), and set the Middle East on a path to peace starting with the Madrid Conference.
The entire world gradually embraced the traditions of free trade. This was epitomized by the establishment of the World Trade Organization, and Russia’s and China’s integration into it. Capital flows were regulated to remedy international financial crises. The world became a “small village” overseen by the American “sheriff”, with its satellites and transcontinental forces on hand to ensure security. In the next four US presidential terms, globalization progressed on the premise that the 21st century was the “American century.” This vision was ushered in by the neoconservatives of the George Bush Jr. administration; it imploded with the 2008 global economic crisis. Barack Obama’s two terms continued to pursue this vision through a liberal democratic approach that aimed to translate globalization into the “end of history,” as heralded by Francis Fukuyama in the early 1990s.
This huge wave of globalization, which was at once a cause of the Soviet Union’s collapse and of China’s rise, held the promise of a unified world starting with the various economic dimensions but not ending with values. These seized on the space for international civilizational interaction made available by new technologies at a time when that space seemed poised for Samuel Huntington’s predicted “clash” of civilizations. The resulting duality is epitomized by the surge in terrorism and the “global war on terrorism”, which led to unprecedented levels of international cooperation in security and, in turn, to the decline in terrorism following the 11 September attacks in New York and Washington, culminating in the defeat of the IS “caliphate” at the Syrian-Iraqi border.
Dialectical philosophy posits that everything, whether material or abstract, contains its own antithesis. Globalization is bearing this out. Indeed, its demise is coming from within the US, the very nation that spearheaded universal globalization and was often accused of using it as a cover for a new form of imperialism.
Globalization brought unprecedented growth in the global economy thanks to its open interactions and technological advances. Discussions of the state of the world became worldwide, addressing the planet’s concerns and pains from its landmasses to outer space. Globalization accelerated at such an unprecedented pace that it became difficult to grasp universally. For example, traditional conservative ideas about the state’s role in the economy and society found themselves at odds with globalization and even the globalized system of free trade. Conservatives and ultraconservatives are inclined to isolationism and insularism. They favor recoiling into the cocoon of the nation state from which they eye other countries with suspicion, including allies and fellow members of regional cooperation and integration arrangements.
Before long, mounting isolationism and xenophobia took on practical form, as manifested in Britain’s departure from the EU, known as Brexit. The election of Trump in 2016 was more than just a swing to a right-wing administration. His first term — “Trump 1” — represented a more sweeping phenomenon, which we could term “Amerexit.” With the anti-globalization trend, be it British or American, came the push to withdraw from international organizations and arrangements viewed by wealthy and predominantly white nations as “unfair.” This withdrawal went beyond globalized economic organizations to security and other institutions, as exemplified by Russia’s exit from the International Criminal Court and the US departure from the World Health Organization.
Trump 2 intends to complete the process, but does that mean globalization will end?
This article was originally published on Ahram Online on April 11, and a version of it appears in print in the 10 April, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
