(本文翻譯自 陳冲 金拱門硝煙後的全球化 2022.06.06.)
Friedman has a vivid observation of globalization in his 1999 masterpiece The Lexus and the Olive Tree, proposing that “No two countries that both have a McDonald's have ever fought a war against each other”. He supported the observation by stating that when both countries have McDonald’s, which means that they have made strong economic integration and that the middle class is strong enough to support a McDonald’s network, they will not go to war with another because there’s too much to lose and they will instead look for other solutions other than war to solve disputes. This statement is called the Golden Arches Theory.
On May. 16th, 2002, McDonald’s announced to withdraw from the Russian market, which means that the 850 stores established in Soviet Union since 1990 (the end of the Cold War) would no longer exist. This is of course the result of Western sanctions under the Russia-Ukraine war, but it also shows that there’s structural change in globalization which was once the rage, and that geopolitical wrestle has distorted the theory of comparative advantage.
This wave of globalization began in the 1980s. Although called globalization, it’s actually a winding road. Just look at the terms anti-globalization, deglobalization and slowbalization, you can see that the opinion I put forward in the speech 20 years ago in Chung Hsing University “Anti-globalization has been globalized while globalization hasn’t” is not empty words. In the past two years, there even comes the term globalization 2.0. it’s better said an embellished saying of “globalization no longer exists” than the advanced version of it. Trump scoffed at globalization, but only language of populism without theoretical basis. And recently, when it comes to high-ranking officials of US government that talk substantively and constructively, Katherine Tai, the United States Trade Representative, is of course one shouldn’t be ignored. Her remarks at two seminars in early May can be regarded as the representative works of (fair-spoken) overthrow of globalization or the so-called globalization 2.0.
First of all, she said that globalization 1.0, which is built on catering to a human element that people have only conceptualized as the consumer, has eroded opportunities and wages for average American and that in terms of globalization 2.0, workers’ rights will be considered more important instead of consumers’ and more efforts should be made on American worker’s wages and opportunities. On another occasion, she said that in refashioning globalization to a globalization 2.0, we should take into account more than just efficiency and low cost, and to promote and reward decisions that are made to pursue resilience and sustainability. To sum up, in the past, international trade focused on maximizing the interests of consumers, and the world also cooperated to pursue comparative advantage, but this should not hurt the employment and purses of American workers and that after the pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war, resilient means the ability to ensure continuous supply of key components and materials. Thinking that it’s she, a meticulous thinker that cares only America’s interests, will be the main negotiator of the U.S.-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade, I can’t help but sweat a cold sweat for our delegates.
From the gorgeous rhetoric of IPEF and the so called 21st Century Initiative, it’s not hard to see the initiative of the US wanting to have a hold over the issue and until now, it’s known that semiconductor is the target. From the topic raised by Biden in his Asia trip, we can know that bringing semiconductor manufacturing back to America is undoubtedly the mid-term goal. Since it can’t be achieved overnight, to strategically lobby Taiwan companies (or TSMC) is a must, so there should be the U.S.-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade as the lackluster TIFA remains useless. But on the other hand, fearing that the cross-strait relations may go out of control, Biden also visited Samsung’s chip plant as if Samsung is also another choice if TSMC can’t meet the demands. All of these are beyond the scope of the globalization of economics and trade.
Talking about globalization, or the countercurrent of globalization, in the past is just a progress. And talking about globalization 1.0, 2.0 or even 3.0 today might be just blowing smoke. The factors that will truly affect the interdependence of world economy and trade might, afraid to say, be strategic thinking, geopolitics, and joint coalition, not the Golden Arches Theory any more.