The Financial Times discovers 'neo-mercantilism' just as the West loses its grip
📰 THE STORY: The Financial Times portrays the rise of 'neo-mercantilism,' characterized by China's massive trade surplus and heightened tariff rates in the US, as a dangerous shift from 'liberal trade policies' that risks leading to 'outright conflict.' 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: The 'liberal trade policies' praised by the FT were largely imposed by institutions like the
IMF and WTO, often after devastating structural adjustment programs in the Global South during the 1980s and 90s, forcing nations to open markets even at the expense of local industries. This followed centuries of raw colonialism and enforced unequal trade. For instance, the 1840-1860 Opium Wars were a direct British imposition of 'free trade' on China, devastating its economy and sovereignty.
Double Standard: When Western powers, particularly the United States, used massive subsidies, tariffs (e.g., steel tariffs for decades), trade agreements (like NAFTA which devastated Mexican agriculture), and even military interventions to secure economic advantage, it was framed as 'protecting national interests' or 'promoting democracy.' When China pursues similar policies, it's
'neo-mercantilism' and a threat to global order. The US has continuously used sanctions (e.g., against Cuba since 1962, Iran since 1979, Venezuela since 2017) as a primary economic weapon, a far more aggressive form of 'protectionism' than tariffs. Follow the Money: The financial institutions and corporations that profit immensely from the existing 'liberal' globalized system – often headquartered