Vance on globalization, multipolarity and the meaning of the terms in the West
This is an X post from Arnaud Bertand, regarding the seeming acceptance by some in the Trump administration that we are now in a multipolar world. The meaning and the understanding is completely opposite.
What becomes crystal clear, is that the US does not take responsibility for its errors. It only wants to get them out of view and if possible, kill them and put them 6-feet under. This then, will explain the real reason for the mass deportations from the US and other actions, as the current wisdom is that cheap labor does not support their economy any longer. Their previous calculus was wrong. So, this major philisophical change that to my view is accepted in the administration, is reason for moving all errors to the side, to the bottom, to the grave or to a penal colony. The views on Israel and the freedom of speech suppression regarding the war on Palestine, is of the same ilk. They know! it is clear that they know, as their public speeches in the past day or so, are carefully arranged to point at Hamas, but not mention Israel, not even as the best partner.
The Vance video is on the X post, and Bertrand’s commentary is written underneath.
This is actually an extraordinary admission to make for a US Vice President pic.twitter.com/cKl9QuDOPd
Vance explains that "the idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain while the poor countries made the simpler things."
But he laments…
— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) March 20, 2025
Vance explains that “the idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain while the poor countries made the simpler things.” But he laments that it didn’t quite work out this way: as he explains it turns out that poor countries (mostly China) didn’t want to just remain cheap labor forever and started moving up the value chain themselves. Which is why, according to him, globalization was a failure. Meaning that the objective of globalization wasn’t to reduce global inequalities but very much to maintain them, to institute a system of permanent economic hierarchy where rich countries would maintain their hold over the most profitable sectors while relegating poor countries to perpetual subordination in lower-value production.
This is basically all you need to know to explain 90% of U.S. foreign policy these past few years: colonial thinking is alive and well, and America’s shift of strategy in recent years – away from the previous “Washington Consensus” of “free” markets towards a much more overt attempt to contain and restrict China’s development – stems precisely from this mindset.
From semiconductor export controls to investment restrictions, these policies aren’t about ‘national security’ in any genuine sense – they’re about trying to preserve a global economic order where, simply put, poorer nations know their assigned place and stay there. At the very core, that’s the “China threat”: a China that stepped out of the economic lane assigned to it by the West.
It’s deeply ironic when you think of it: a global game allegedly designed to “spread market principles” worldwide is being abandoned precisely because it worked too well.
When China succeeded better than expected, the response wasn’t to celebrate the validation of the game’s effectiveness but to change its rules. Precisely because the real unspoken game – but now clearly stated by the U.S. Vice President – was to maintain global inequality, not eliminate it. All in all, in case they hadn’t yet gotten the memo, this sends a very clear message to the developing world: economic development will require challenging a U.S.-dominated economic order that views their advancement as a threat rather than a success. Which incidentally is why Vance’s words might actually help accelerate the very redistribution of global economic power he laments, pushing more nations to recognize that genuine development requires strategic independence from a system intended to keep them in their place.
Those countries at the lower end of the global manufacturing industry chain should not surpass the United States and become powerful.
—
Following is another comment on The Arnaud Bertrand post.
Throughout thousands of years of human civilization, only one country has risen and fallen multiple times yet still stands strong and unyielding—China. Other empires, once they decline, remain in decline. So far, not a single one has regained its former strength, and the United States will be no exception.