How Geopolitics Overran Globalization

Until recently, it seemed almost inevitable that globalization would unite the world, bringing prosperity and stability everywhere. The idea was simple: more trade, fewer wars. But today, we are faced with a paradox. Globalization, created to defuse geopolitical tensions, has itself become a source of conflict. And here’s the surprising part: today, more trade does not guarantee fewer clashes between countries—on the contrary, it often amplifies them. Here’s the argument: geopolitics has not only halted the march of globalization, but has also reshaped it, turning integration into fragmentation and making economic alliances a reflection of political rivalries rather than a bridge that transcends them. Until the 1980s, the idea of a global market seemed like a fantasy. Then, with the collapse of trade barriers and the revolution in logistics – such as container shipping – goods began to travel everywhere. Countries like China became the world's factories, while the United States and other wealthy countries started importing everything, running up debts and losing long-established industries. But who experienced this transformation? Take Detroit's factory workers: while American consumers enjoyed inexpensive Japanese cars, thousands of workers were losing their jobs. And when the “China shock” hit, more than two million jobs were lost in the United States between 1999 and 2011, including about one million in manufacturing. It's no surprise that anger exploded at the ballot box, bringing to the White House someone who promised to turn the tide. Trump rode this wave, but he wasn’t the only one: Democrats, too, have now adopted anti-globalization rhetoric and policies. And the real reversal is that, instead of negating geopolitics, globalization has become a battleground for it. Just look at the relationship between the United States and China: once partners, today they exchange tariffs, threats, and retaliatory measures. In 2000, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $83 billion; by 2018, it had reached $418 billion. The Americans accuse China of unfair competition and technology theft, while the Chinese protect their national champions and require foreign companies to share innovation and know-how. In response to each new U.S. tariff, China blocks exports of rare-earth elements, which are essential for U.S. technology. It's not just the major powers that are playing this game. Multinational companies, which used to seek the lowest cost around the world, are now primarily focused on geopolitical security: Apple is moving part of its production to India, Chinese manufacturers are investing in Mexico and Vietnam to circumvent U.S. tariffs, and everyone is trying to “reshoring” or “friend-shoring” production to friendly countries. The result? Shorter, less efficient, but “safer” supply chains – at least on paper. But here comes the second surprise: this new form of globalization does not reduce risks; it transforms them. Companies no longer serve as bridges between rival countries; on the contrary, they retreat into their own blocs, making the world more unstable and less collaborative. And it is often the poorest countries that foot the bill, risking exclusion from global markets at the very time when they most need them to grow and lift themselves out of poverty. Is there a way out? Yes, but it requires political courage: protecting affected workers in rich countries, reforming global institutions – such as the WTO and the International Monetary Fund – and, most importantly, resisting the temptation to view all trade as a threat. We need to stop thinking that less globalization automatically means more security. The truly counterintuitive point is that the solution to the problems of globalization is not to close the doors, but to make it fairer and less fragile. Today, it is widely believed that international trade is only a source of domestic problems and geopolitical risks. However, history shows that when the flow of ideas, people, and goods is disrupted, the world becomes less secure, not more protected. Globalization is not over, but we are experiencing it in its most divisive form. Thinking of it solely as a threat makes us forget that many of its crises stem from political choices, not from inevitable economic forces. And those who are left out risk never being able to get back in. In short: the world is closing down just when it most needs to open up. If you recognized yourself in this story of global dreams turned into conflict, you can click I'm In on Lara Notes—it's your way of declaring that this vision truly resonates with you. And if, in a few days' time, you find yourself telling someone how globalization has become a geopolitical battleground, on Lara Notes you can tag those who were with you thanks to Shared Offline: because certain conversations should be remembered as moments that matter. This Note comes from Foreign Affairs and saved you about 22 minutes compared to reading the original article.