Observations of an ex pat: Globalism

Lost this week in the blizzard of a British constitutional crisis and an American impeachment inquiry was President Donald Trump’s speech to the UN General Assembly.

Compared to past addresses to the United Nations this one was subdued. His language was relatively temperate, measured and verged on statesmanlike.  It was a good speech—and all the more chilling for it.

If Donald Trump has a political philosophy other than his own person advancement it is what he terms patriotism– and others  fear as nationalism–versus internationalism and globalism. This is clear from his red “Make America Great Again” baseball caps, flurry of tariffs and immigration policy

Trump told the annual autumn meeting of heads of government and state in New York: “The future does not belong to globalism. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations.”

In his 35 minute speech he went on to applaud Brexit, Boris Johnson, attack China’s trade policies and socialism;  call for the complete isolation of Iran and Venezuela,  increased spending by NATO allies,  the reorganisation of the World Trade Organisation and refused support for any international organisation that supported abortions.  He finished up all of the above with the insistence that all actions had to be made within the context of competing national political structures.

The reason for Trump’s Darwinian approach is clear: America’s is the world’s only economic and military super power. According to the latest IMF figures, the US produces nearly a quarter (24.4 percent) of the world’s GDP.  Its national  gold reserves  ( in excess of 8000 metric tonnes) are greater than the next three largest gold reserves combined.

Trump extols the virtues of the nation state because doing so works to the advantage of America. The only way that smaller countries can compete against American power  is by organising themselves into trading blocs or pursuing a level playing field policed by international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation.  Trump does not believe in win/win or that a rising tide floats all ships. He a win/lose businessman letting loose torpedoes across the trading seas.

The US president supports Brexit because it will weaken the trading position of both the UK and EU. EU is the world’s largest trading bloc and this gives its members increased negotiating power in any trade deals. This is disadvantageous to the US. The break-up of the EU reduces the negotiating power of its constituent parts and enables to American trade negotiators to dictate terms to each of the separate 28 members as well as the EU’s trading partners. America wins. Everyone else loses.

China, is a more difficult case, and the biggest threat to American hegemony. Unlike the EU it is not a trading bloc but a national state of the sort lauded in Trump’s UN speech.  And it is enjoying a patriotic resurgence and prosperity after centuries of decline. The problem is that its large population (1.435 billion) and fast growing economy makes it a major threat to Trump’s America First policy. So he imposes punitive tariffs on China and uses his UN speech to attack Beijing for intellectual property theft, dumping, currency manipulation and unfair trading practices. As with most of his attacks, there is an element of truth in his criticisms of the Chinese, but his solution of ditching globalism is a dangerous one.

The fact is that we live in a globalist economy. If you want iron ore for your steel mills it is best to have a quiet word with the Swedes or Canadians. If you need phosphates to fertilise the amber waves of grain or the fruited plain, it is best to be nice to the Moroccans. For tin cans think Africa and Australia. If you want a brick house you need sand—that probably means China or New Zealand. As for oil, well, just think of an unstable part of the world, smile nicely and thrust out a fistful of dollars.

America is not alone in its needs. Central and Western Europe are heavily dependent on Russian natural gas. Landlocked Bolivia depends on good relations with Peru and Chile to export and import its goods by sea. Oman and Iran together control the Straits of Hormuz and the entrance to the Persian Gulf, and the Vietnamese rice paddies are at the mercy of a China that controls the water flowing from the Himalayas.

Manufacturing industries of the 21st century are completely global. A car’s brakes may be made in Brazil; its tyres in Malaysia and its crankshaft in Lithuania before all the parts are shipped on British ships crewed by Filipinos for assembly in Detroit. A law office may be based in London, but the firm’s back office is in Mumbai while the call centre is in Cyprus.

This interlinking globalised trading system brings the benefits of economic growth to every corner of the world and reduces the prices for consumers by ensuring that the best possible production costs are achieved. It also has the effect of reducing political tensions as economic interdependence forces countries to cooperate and avoid conflict. Trump’s anti-globalist nationalism risks the opposite.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain". To subscribe to his email alerts on world affairs click here.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • Richard Easter 27th Sep '19 - 1:40pm

    Trump is a blustering lunatic, but it doesn’t stop the reality that globalisation has not been good for everyone. De-industrialisation, job offshoring, privatisation, global finance capitalism and free movement of capital and labour have had disastrous effects on some areas and many people – and if we simply support the above unquestionably, will lead to ever more support for the populist right, or strong statist solutions (be it left wing socialism or Trumpian nativism).

    What we are seeing is that global capital cares not for patriotism, nations, people or traditions, and hence why there is grassroots presssure from right wingers opposing rampant capitalism and globalisation, as there has been from left wingers. It is important that the Lib Dems aren’t seen as just a party of global capitalism, which since the days of Kennedy in charge, increasingly seems like it is. Rather than being a radical liberal party, the party is increasingly looking like the voice of the establishment. The party seems more interested in winning seats in the City because of the Remain / corporate cachet, than caring about what happens to Skegness.

  • The evidence is that the main aim of the US President is not to make America great but to get himself re-elected.
    His actions are not making the lives of the majority of Americans better, but to give more to those who will fund his campaign. There is a international economy. The big contribution of the EU is to start to bring it under control. The US President and the U.K. Prime Minister are pursuing policies which will benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.
    The challenge for Liberals is to work out how to meet this threat. One important step is to work with other countries to build democratic international structures to start to get control. The European Union is the only one at the moment. Another important step is to make our own country democratic. We need to ensure that we fight for a country where there is a good health service, efficient transport, education for all, and so on. But to do this we need to build a society where all are able to contribute to decision making on the things that are important to them.

  • A really good post and comments! Tom Harney makes the point about the need to make our country democratic – I Imagine in terms of being more inclusive and egalitarian. And Richard Easter wonders if the party cares at all about Skegness! I’ve always considered our electoral system to be lacking and I don’t mean glibly banging on about PR and ‘equal votes’ but specifically about STV with its larger multi-member constituencies. I wonder how many parliamentary constituencies most people move through in one day between home, work, shopping, school, social events etc. it’s likely to be more than one for a a great many people. Multi-member constituencies retain the link between MP’s and constituents but they also provide an opportunity for MP’s, even from different parties, to work closely together, to lobby government, to build links between business, local government, social enterprises and services that serve these mini-regions to achieve more understanding and better results for their people.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Thelma Davies
    @Nonconform. I'm stating that it's my responsibility & my husband's that my children were toilet trained & had basic reading and writing skills prior to...
  • Mary ReidMary Reid
    @Simon Atkinson - I am so pleased you like our musings on Max's impact within and beyond the party. And please accept my sympathies to the whole family for the ...
  • Chris Moore
    @ExLD Leeds: that's a ludicrous reason not to vote LD. Theakes is in a vanishingly tiny minority regarding the desirability of PR, as you must well know. LDs...
  • Mary ReidMary Reid
    @David Raw - yes, you can register as an online member and vote for £20. I did it last time and it worked well. And anyone can watch it for free on the Lib Dem...
  • Simon Atkinson
    Thank you so much for these wonderful comments everyone, and for the smashing tribute, Mary. He would have been so chuffed to read your kind words. Max wasn't a...