Depth report

　　

Since the 2016 Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, the term "anti-globalization" has frequently appeared in Chinese newspapers or appeared in seminars. In March of this year, Trump first announced tariffs on steel products and aluminum products imported from the United States, and then announced in a high profile that it would impose 25% tariffs on US$60 billion worth of Chinese exports to the United States. As the "trade war" between China and the United States is about to come, the term "anti-globalization" and even the "new cold war" between China and the United States may become popular again.

    The most common example used to support the argument of “reverse globalization” is Brexit and Trump’s election. However, the nature and severity of these two events are very different, and the impacts are also very different in magnitude. . Although Brexit does expose the hidden anti-EU undercurrents in British society and some of the EU’s own mechanisms that have yet to be made up, it should not be forgotten that the EU represents the “high-level” aspect of globalization and has broken through sovereignty. The country's structure is moving towards deep integration across borders, and it is not the same as the "ordinary" globalization that is still manifested in the liberalization of trade and investment between sovereign states. At the same time, the size of the British economy is by no means large enough to cause an extremely significant impact on the global economy. For example, if an athlete running at the top temporarily stops or retreats, it does not mean that the entire queue is reversed. Based on Brexit, rashly claiming that "reverse globalization" is happening may not conform to rigorous logic.

    Relatively speaking, it is undeniable that Trump becoming the President of the United States is a major challenge facing globalization. However, Trump's willingness and ability to reverse globalization are subject to many restrictions, including the constraints of other political forces in the United States and the international level. Resistance. The "Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement" (TPP) that Trump withdrew was successfully taken over by Asia-Pacific countries such as Japan, and the protectionist measures such as tariffs he threatened have been condemned by the international are all examples. Since 2017, the populist trend has been continuously curbed in European countries, and to a certain extent the lead of the intensified anti-EU wave in Europe has been removed, thus reducing the overall decline and narrow nationalism of the West as the leader of globalization. risk.

    Another argument of "anti-globalization" theorists is that globalization is increasingly threatened by the so-called "clash of civilizations", which has become or is about to become the main contradiction, leading to the destruction of globalization. An example is the race in Western society. Conflicts and terrorist attacks. However, the "clash of civilizations" proposed by the American political scientist Samuel Huntington is a vague or even empty concept. His claim is only a family statement, which has been widely, fiercely and reasonably refuted by the West and the entire international academic community. . Moreover, even Huntington himself has many restrictions on the "clash of civilizations". For example, he does not believe that there is no blending of civilizations. Any group belonging to different "civilizations" will inevitably conflict, and conflicts must be irreconcilable and uncontrollable. You only need to read Huntington's work to see this. If the "clash of civilizations" (or a more narrowly distorted version of the "clash of civilizations" of Huntington's original intent) is regarded as a universal and even the only insight, I am afraid it is a narrow and humble opinion.

    Philosophers have repeatedly emphasized during his lifetime: "Different customs can be exchanged and changed, and the difficulty is not higher than changing the way a person or a nation eats." The entire human history is a process of changes in customs and civilizations. , There will never be a solidified, immutable “civilization”. The view of the inevitable conflict between civilizations deliberately exaggerates the differences and gaps between different civilizations and cultures, which is neither in line with reality, but also harmful to reality. The economic and political impact of the inevitable wave of transnational immigration in the process of globalization does require multi-angle research and discussion. However, if we use solid conclusions to distort the phenomenon, we will only wear a picture of "clash of civilizations". Looking at immigrants and refugees through spectacles, treating immigrants as a pure source of danger, and denying the possibility of communication and integration between different races and faith groups will lead to misunderstandings. Transnational migration and cultural integration are still mainly driving forces of globalization, rather than threats to globalization.

    The current tariff measures proposed by Trump have indeed drawn Sino-US relations into a dangerous territory, but whether this will undermine globalization or even lead the two countries to a new "cold war" depends on how the two countries react. Trump’s tariffs will not help reduce the U.S. trade deficit. Given the fact that the closely-connected multinational industrial chain has taken shape, it will definitely not constitute a “precision blow” against China, but will only create chaos in the international trade order. There is no positive value on the above, and it may even damage the welfare of American consumers and affect the agricultural community in the United States (especially when China takes targeted retaliation), thereby adding risks and instability to the US economy.

    The “trade war” will only cause both losses, so China’s response should never be to clamor for a “trade war” or resort to nationalism like Trump, or blindly portray trade disputes as geopolitical battles and exaggerate tensions. Instead, it should mainly take the route of using international trade rules to play games and bilateral negotiations, and cooperate with groups that have interests in the United States and China to curb Trump's irrational "economic nationalism." Of course, China continues to promote reforms in related fields such as state-owned enterprises, intellectual property rights, and the renminbi exchange rate at home, and clarifies the boundaries between government and enterprises, and reduces zombie companies and excess production capacity. This will eliminate the US's instigation of a "trade war" to a certain extent. , It can also add impetus to the healthy development of China's own economy. In this case, we should not talk about "reverse globalization" in particular, or even regard it as an inevitable trend, or even misjudge the international situation and lose the opportunity for reform.

     Although blindly optimistic about globalization and denying the "dark side" of globalization are also worthy of reflection, it is meaningless to talk about "anti-globalization" in general. It is not meaningful to examine the fact that international trade, investment, technology transfer, and immigration have been or will be affected. What influences and what kind of economic, social and political changes will have ideological and practical value. Of course, globalization has also brought many “losers”, such as manufacturing workers in some areas of western developed countries that are difficult to transform. However, the solution to these problems should never be trade barriers and more tariffs, but a reasonable social policy. Regulating with the government, this is the real test for Trump.