In recent years, the United States has frequently provoked first-class wars and technological wars around the world, trying to create a new economic system that does not include China in order to maintain its global hegemony. However, this approach has not only met with resolute opposition from China, but has also aroused widespread concern in the international community. Even the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Georgieva, warned that if the global economy follows a geopolitical course, it will cause huge losses to the world.
On January 2, Georgieva said in an interview with the United States that due to the increase in restrictions, the global economy may be forced into two blocs, one led by the United States and one led by China. She added that if this trend continues, the total global GDP could fall by 7%, equivalent to a year's GDP of France and Germany. She called on countries to find ways to reduce friction and focus on real global common security issues, rather than the haphazard world economy.
Georgieva's remarks are actually a harsh criticism of the United States' anti-globalization. Since Trump took office, the United States has been pursuing an "America First" policy, waging a first-class war and a technological war against China and other countries, or putting forward the so-called "decoupling and breaking the chain" and "de-risking", trying to isolate China in technology and industrial chains and build a new economic system that does not depend on China. The purpose of the United States is to maintain its global hegemony, prevent the development of China and other countries, and maintain the privileges of its few developed countries.
However, this practice of the United States not only runs counter to the historical trend of globalization, but also runs counter to the law of global economic development. Globalization is a model of economic cooperation between countries in order to achieve peace and prosperity after the Second World War. Through globalization, the economies of various countries are interconnected, and various market factors, such as manpower, technology, capital, transportation, etc., are combined in a more efficient way, which promotes the growth of the global economy and makes the cake of the world economy bigger and bigger. Globalization has also provided new growth points for some first-mover industrial countries, allowing them to transfer capital from their own countries to other underdeveloped regions, realizing the optimal allocation of industrial chains, and ensuring that they can continue to obtain profits from the world without war.
The United States' de-globalization is actually a kind of artificial intervention and a kind of historical regression. It breaks the integrity of the global economy, increases the cost of production of the same commodity, leads to some unnecessary chain interruptions, and some costs that should not be reinvested are reinvested. This practice is not only a huge waste of global resources, but also a great harm to the global economy. According to IMF estimates, if the global economy follows a geopolitical course**, the total global GDP could fall by 7%, which would be a staggering figure, enough to plunge the world into a deep crisis.
The United States' de-globalization is also a kind of moral corruption and an unsustainable practice. It is a beggar-thy-neighbor approach, a line of thought of bloc confrontation, and an arrogance of self-respect. It is to preserve the privileges of a few developed countries while curbing the right of the remaining 7 billion people of the world to pursue a happy life. Such an approach, not only unethical but also unsustainable, would ultimately harm the interests of the international community as a whole, and no country would be immune.
Therefore, the United States' anti-globalization has not only met with China's resolute opposition, but has also aroused widespread concern in the international community. Even financial institutions such as the IMF have begun to oppose the United States' policy of abusing "the name of the United States and artificially creating barriers." This shows that the United States' anti-globalization has gone against the trend of the world and the interests of the world. Time and the needs of the development of the world economy will ultimately prove who is right and who is going against history and being abandoned by history.