John Rapley
WASHINGTON:
In the last few weeks, some observers of American politics have begun to detect what may be a disturbing new turn. A rising tide of isolationism, building for a few years, seems now to be swelling.
Signs have been multiplying of late. Last summer's trade deal with Central America almost failed to make it through Congress. Meanwhile, discontent over the trade deficit with China grows ever greater, with some Congressmen threatening to impose tariffs on Chinese imports if China doesn't revalue its currency.
A proposed bill will tighten immigration rules. All the while, vigilantes are patrolling the Mexican border, which many Americans would like to seal off with a wall. New restrictions are making it harder for some foreign businesses to operate in the U.S. There is even talk of new limits on travel into Canada, possibly ending that frontier's cherished status as the world's longest undefended border.
SECURITY CONCERNS
Most disturbingly, a recent move by a Dubai-based company to take over the management of some U.S. ports was shot down. Putatively, it was security concerns that blocked the development. In fact, port security would likely not have been affected by the management contract. Instead, the collapse of the deal appears to point to the underlying malaise behind what seems to be a resurgent isolationism.
Globalisation has been enjoying a bad press from the late 1990s. Not without cause, some might add: in many countries the fruits of globalisation have flowed more freely into some hands than others. But for all its ills, globalisation remains a phenomenon that needs repair rather than rejection.
Managing the process so that all benefit widely is the better way to go. But in much of the world, anger with globalisation is leading ordinary folk to give up altogether on reform. The populist tide that has been sweeping through Latin America stands as evidence of this.
In the face of such a turn against globalisation, strong leadership will be needed to ensure the process moves forward. And in the context of a unipolar world, there is only one country which can presently play this role. That is the U.S.A.
ANTI-IMMIGRATION SENTIMENT
The Bush administration would like to do it. Indeed, it has been trying: it spoke out against the opposition to the Dubai ports deal, just as it is criticising rising anti-immigration sentiment. For the White House knows what many Americans seem not yet to realise: the U.S. has come to be so dependent on the world economy - on its workers, whether they be Chinese factory labourers or Mexican migrants; on its investors, whether they be private companies or the planet's central banks; and on its markets, upon which the American economy has come to depend more than ever before - that a turn inward could have potentially catastrophic effects.
Indeed, many economists are quick to point out that the Great Depression resulted from just this sort of isolationism. The problem is that the Bush administration has become so weak, fewer and fewer people are heeding its calls. Many Americans don't trust it. Now, even its friends are starting to question it. George W. Bush is at serious risk of becoming a lame duck.
Despite all our complaints against globalisation, it would be a pity if the baby got thrown out with the bathwater. But when the world has come to depend on leadership from an administration which has squandered trust - Mr. Bush told Americans to trust him on Iraq, after all - you realise globalisation may be in for a rough few years.
John Rapley is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona.
