FLASH
Shkruar nga Joseph S. Nye 
As long as we have the technologies, globalization will continue to exist, but it may not be as beneficial as it has been to date.
When the fires broke out in Los Angeles early last month, notorious American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones wrote on the X platform (formerly Twitter) that they were “part of a larger globalist conspiracy to wage economic warfare and deindustrialize the United States.”
While Jones's explanation for the fires was absurd, he was right when he said they were related to globalization. Last year was the hottest on Earth since records began. It was likely the hottest in at least 125,000 years, beating the record set in 2023.
For the first time, average global temperatures have exceeded the Paris climate agreement's target of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Scientists largely blame human-caused climate change.
Globalization refers in principle to interdependence across intercontinental distances. Trade between European countries reflects regional interdependence, while European trade with the US or China reflects globalization.
By threatening China with tariffs, US President Donald Trump is trying to downplay the economic aspect of our global interdependence, which he blames for the loss of domestic industries and jobs. Now economists are debating how much of that loss is caused by global trade.
Several studies have found that millions of jobs have been lost to foreign competition. But that's not the only reason. Many economists argue that the most important factor was automation.
Such a change may increase overall productivity but at the same time cause economic damage, and in such cases populist leaders find it easier to blame foreigners than machines. They also blame immigrants, who may be beneficial to the economy in the long term but can be more easily labeled as the cause of destructive change in the short term.
The migration of people out of Africa is arguably the first example of globalization, and the United States and many other countries are products of the same basic phenomenon. But as these countries were being built, early immigrants often complained about the economic burden and cultural incompatibility of the newcomers.
This pattern continues today. When immigration (or its media coverage) increases rapidly, political reactions are to be expected. In almost all democracies in recent years, immigration has become a key issue for populists seeking to challenge incumbent governments.
It was a key factor in Trump's election in 2016, and again last year. Social media and artificial intelligence may be more significant sources of division and anxiety, but they are less tangible (and therefore less attractive) targets.
For this reason, in almost all democracies, some people blame the rise of populism on the increasing spread and speed of globalization. Even though populists themselves blame trade and immigrants for most of their countries' problems.
Trade and migration really accelerated after the end of the Cold War, as political changes and improved communications technology brought greater economic openness and lowered the cost of cross-border flows of capital, goods, and people.
Now, with the rise of populists, tariffs and border controls could limit these flows. But can economic globalization be undone? It has happened before. The 19th century was characterized by rapid growth in both trade and migration, but it came to a halt with the outbreak of World War I.
Trade as a share of world GDP did not return to its 1914 levels until 1970. Could it happen again now, when some American politicians are advocating a complete economic disengagement from China?
While security concerns could reduce bilateral trade, the sheer cost of abandoning a relationship worth more than half a trillion dollars a year makes a complete breakup unlikely.
But “unlikely” is not the same as “impossible.” A war over Taiwan, for example, could halt U.S.-China trade. In any case, trying to understand the future of globalization requires us to look beyond economics.
There are many other types of global interdependencies, military, ecological, social, health, and so on. While war is always devastating for those directly involved in it, it is worth remembering that the Covid-19 pandemic has killed more Americans than have died in all of America’s wars.
Scientists also predict that climate change will have huge costs, as global melting of ice sheets will cause many coastal cities to be submerged by the end of this century. But even now, climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and wildfires.
The irony is that we may be in the process of limiting the kind of globalization that has benefits, while not confronting the kinds of globalization that have only costs. Among the first moves of the second Trump administration was the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization.
So what will be the future of globalization? Long-distance interdependence will still remain as long as people move around, and are equipped with communication and transportation technologies.
After all, economic globalization has been going on for centuries. Its origins can be traced back to ancient trade routes, such as the Silk Road (which China has adopted as the slogan for its “Belt and Road” infrastructure program that is spanning almost the entire globe).
During the 15th century, innovations in ocean transportation ushered in the Age of Exploration, which was followed by the era of European colonization, which shaped today's national borders. During the 19th and 20th centuries, steamships and telegraphs accelerated the process, as industrialization transformed agrarian economies.
Now the information revolution is transforming our service-oriented economies. The widespread use of the Internet began at the beginning of this century, and now billions of people around the world carry a computer in their pockets that half a century ago occupied a large building.
As Artificial Intelligence advances, the scope, speed, and volume of global communication will increase exponentially. World wars have upended economic globalization, protectionist policies may slow it down, and international institutions have failed to keep pace with many of the changes now taking place.
As long as we have the technologies, globalization will continue to exist, but it may not be as beneficial as it has been to date.
Note: Joseph S. Nye, professor at Harvard University, and former US assistant secretary of defense.
Lini një Përgjigje