Things Change

Via Tanner Greer's outstanding blog, The Scholar's Stage, we learned that Japan's 2022 National Security Strategy, published on December 16, ends with this startling statement:

At this time of an inflection point in history, Japan is finding itself in the midst of the most severe and complex security environment since the end of WWII. In no way can we be optimistic about what the future of the international community will hold.

And the document starts with this:

The international community is facing changes defining an era. We are reminded once again that globalization and interdependence alone cannot serve as a guarantor for peace and development across the globe. The free, open, and stable international order, which expanded worldwide in the post-Cold War era, is now at stake with serious challenges amidst historical changes in power balances and intensifying geopolitical competition…

Japan, once the epitome of a country basing its policy on globalization and a global community within which it would be integrated, has concluded that vision is gone, a point emphasized in this passage:

Japan will work to achieve a virtuous cycle of security and economic growth, in which economic growth promotes the improvement of the security environment surrounding Japan. Concurrently, Japan will ensure the self-reliance of its economic structure, as well as advantages over other countries and ultimately the indispensability of its technologies.

Japan clearly blames this change on China and Russia:

largely due to the fact that nations, not sharing universal values, or political and economic systems based on such values in common, are expanding their influences, thereby manifesting risks around the globe. Specifically, some states, which do not exclude the policy of increasing their own national interests at the expense of others, are expanding their influence through both military and non-military means, attempting to unilaterally change the status quo, and accelerating actions to challenge the international order. Such moves have sharpened competition and confrontation among states in wide-ranging areas, including military, diplomatic, economic, and technological fields, and have shaken the foundation of the international order.

Greer writes of his own reaction:

I find myself strangely affected by this document. There was once a dream that globalization might save the world. As the fortunes and culture of the great human hive grew ever more intertwined, we dreamed that we could be one with all the globe. We would no longer just be citizens of soil or state, but citizens of the species! With hearts knit in unity, love, and enlightened self interest, old hatreds would melt away. Many millennia of chaos and strife might end. America would form the living kernel of this new commercial order. Her enterprise would provide the connecting tissue that wrapped together the prosperity and liberty of the entire human race. 

And he concludes with these words:

I believe the Japanese have judged correctly; I support the Biden administration’s attempt to blunt China’s technological edge. But it is difficult to see these things play out in real life and feel any sense of victory. We are sliding into a darker world order. The Chinese got there first; we should have followed long ago. There is little sense in keeping to old forms that do not match present realities. But the old forms will not go unmourned. It is always sad to watch a dream die.

Though there are still some in American academia, government, and business, and many in Western Europe, who still refuse to face the present realities and want to keep the old forms, the world really has changed and the dream is fading.

In December, Morris Chang, founder of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which is making a $12 billion investment in the Phoenix area, proclaimed in a speech here that globalization and free trade were "almost dead".

Though both Russia and China actions have led to this, Russia is, by itself a nuisance, but nothing more, but for China's support.  It is China's disruption that is at the heart of this.  

Those more knowledgeable than me are still debating whether this was China's plan all along or is really attributable to the changes under Xi Jingping, who took control in 2012.  What I do know is that during my time traveling frequently to China from 2000 through 2011, I was cautiously optimistic, though as the years passed less so.  In retrospect, the Clinton/Bush policy of integrating China into the world economy and agreeing to China's entry into the World Trade Organization without additional conditions backfired.  

The unraveling of globalization will be painful and risky for everyone.  This is much different than our confrontation with the Soviet Union, a military superpower but economic basket case.  Unlike our relationship with China, the United States and Soviet economies were not integrated; in fact the Soviets deliberately isolated themselves among their communist satellites and allies.(1) 

It was also a different world militarily.  During the Cold War, there were two superpowers.  For two decades after the end of the Cold War, America was the sole hyperpower.  Those days are over, both militarily and economically.  The U.S. is still the strongest individual nation but can no longer dominate the world in either aspect.  We must be more selective in choosing our priorities and where to spend our monies.  We need to end the illusion that we should, and can, influence everything in the world.

------------------------------------------------------

(1) I don't think ending globalizations means the U.S. will produce everything here, but I think you will see rival trading blocs formed and decisions made to encourage local production in certain key areas.