The era of globalization saw the rationality of trade and its proliferation emphasized. Each participant could benefit from trading. The model was positive-sum. Such a framework facilitated peace between nations, with each nation benefiting from developing its activities and revenues rather than entering into an inevitably destructive conflict.

This is not the analysis of US Vice President J.D. Vance, for whom the world has developed at the expense of the United States. Free trade and multilateralism are traps for the United States, the leader of the rich countries, since the economy is, above all, a zero-sum game. This is the idea that must be retained from the way economic policy is now being steered on the other side of the Atlantic.
The idea is that the world is finite and that, consequently, the United States must frame its actions within a balance of power that will allow it to increase its power, which is necessary to maintain the American position. The bilateral approach is favored so that the negotiation reflects the balance of power between Washington and its interlocutor.

This has several types of consequences when the dominant economy is as powerful as the United States.

The first is that the world should only develop conditionally on what is done on American soil. The customs duties that will eventually arrive must penalize the development of other economies but also encourage the most efficient companies to set up on American soil.

The second is that if the world is finite, if the economy is a zero-sum game, then it is tempting to capture territories where goods, particularly raw materials, are available. Borders are no longer as tangible.

The bifurcation is understandable.
After the Second World War, free trade was a means of development for Western countries, but it was also, because of the resulting increase in income, a way to attract countries that remained behind the Iron Curtain. It ultimately worked.

What has changed is the rise of autocratic regimes in China, Russia, and a few other countries. These countries, without political opposition, also have authoritarian tendencies and global influence. China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Russia’s territorial gains in Georgia and Ukraine, even before the current conflict, should not be interpreted in any other way.

What’s new is that the United States seems to have shifted into this camp of autocrats. In this zero-sum economic model, power is the weapon and the ultimate stake. The economy is merely a means to the political power it allows. And if it requires conquering territories to achieve this, autocrats are giving themselves the means to do so. International law thus loses its status as the ultimate reference.

To be continued…