In a speech at the American Dynamism Summit, where the organization presented a simulation of the US going to war with China over the latter attacking Taiwan and disrupting the microchip supply chain, US Vice President JD Vance defended the Trump administration’s push for technology innovation, criticizing the impact of globalization over the past four decades.
Vance argued that two key assumptions about globalization had failed the US: first, that the US could separate manufacturing from design, and second, that cheap labor would spur innovation. He contended that as other nations improved their manufacturing capabilities, they also advanced in design, squeezing the US from both ends of the value chain. Vance also criticized the reliance on cheap labor, calling it a "crutch" that stifles innovation.
He emphasized the administration's goal of incentivizing domestic investment and rebuilding American industries, warning that deindustrialization poses risks to national security and workforce identity. Vance also addressed concerns about AI displacing jobs, arguing that technological advancements, like ATMs, often create new opportunities rather than eliminate them. He urged Americans to embrace and dominate emerging technologies rather than fear them.
Vance’s speech reflects the Trump administration’s protectionist and nationalist economic policies, emphasizing domestic investment and technological dominance. While his critique of globalization highlights valid concerns about US manufacturing and innovation erosion, his arguments oversimplify the complexities of global trade and technological progress. For instance, the assumption that cheap labor inherently stifles innovation ignores the role of global supply chains in driving efficiency and scalability.
Additionally, his comparison of AI to ATMs may downplay the potential disruptive impact of AI on a broader range of industries. Vance’s call for deregulation and domestic investment aligns with the administration's agenda. Still, it risks neglecting the need for balanced policies addressing economic growth and ethical considerations in technology development. While his rhetoric resonates with those advocating for American self-reliance, it may lack the nuance required to address the multifaceted challenges of globalization and technological change.
This represents a remarkable and candid admission from a US vice president, shedding light on globalization's underlying principles as American policymakers perceive. J.D. Vance articulates the initial premise of globalization: that wealthy nations would ascend to higher echelons of the global value chain.
In contrast, poorer nations would remain confined to producing lower-value goods. However, he acknowledges that this vision failed to materialize as intended. Contrary to expectations, poorer nations—primarily China—refused to remain perpetually relegated to the role of cheap labor and instead began climbing the value chain themselves. Vance concludes that this deviation from the intended trajectory is why globalization, in his view, has been a failure.
This admission reveals a critical truth: the unstated objective of globalization was never to mitigate global inequalities but rather to institutionalize and perpetuate them. The envisioned system was an entrenched economic hierarchy where wealthy nations would dominate the most lucrative sectors of the global economy. In comparison, poorer nations were consigned to a permanent state of subordination in low-value production.
This framework underscores the enduring influence of colonialist thinking, which continues to shape US foreign policy. In recent years, the US has shifted away from the so-called "Washington Consensus" of free markets toward a more explicit strategy of containing China's rise. This strategic pivot is rooted in the same mindset: a desire to preserve a global economic order in which poorer nations remain in their "assigned place."
From semiconductor export controls to investment restrictions, the policies enacted by the US are not genuinely motivated by national security concerns. Instead, they are designed to maintain a global economic hierarchy that ensures poorer nations do not challenge the dominance of wealthier ones. At its core, the perceived "China threat" is not about security but about China's refusal to remain confined to the economic role assigned to it by the West. This irony is striking: a global system ostensibly designed to propagate market principles worldwide is being dismantled precisely because it succeeded too well. China's unprecedented economic ascent, rather than being celebrated as a validation of the system's efficacy, has prompted a recalibration of the rules. The unspoken objective—now explicitly articulated by the US vice president—was to sustain global inequality, not eradicate it.
This admission sends an unequivocal message to the developing world: achieving meaningful economic development will necessitate challenging a US-dominated economic order that perceives its progress as a threat rather than a triumph. Paradoxically, Vance's candid remarks may accelerate the redistribution of global economic power he laments. By exposing the systemic intent to maintain inequality, his words could galvanize nations to pursue strategic independence from a system designed to perpetuate their subordination. In doing so, they may hasten the emergence of a more multipolar economic order in which the advancement of developing nations is no longer viewed as a disruption but as an integral part of global progress.
The postwar world order was never a beacon of democracy and freedom—it was a carefully curated illusion, a strategic mirage concealing imperialist ambitions behind lofty rhetoric. The United States, long celebrated as the guardian of liberty, was the architect of a global system built on control, coercion, and violence. From the countless coups and regime changes orchestrated across Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East to the wars waged under the banners of counterterrorism and human rights, the true nature of American leadership has always been one of domination. The overreach that began after 9/11 only accelerated the unraveling of this pretense, culminating in today's undeniable reality: a world where US foreign policy no longer even pretends to stand for justice. The ongoing genocide in Gaza carried out with American weapons and diplomatic cover, has stripped away the last remnants of moral legitimacy, revealing a brutal order that might make right.
Was this always the true face of the American-led global system? Or is it merely the corruption of a single administration? If the former, then what else has been a mirage? The rules-based order? The international legal system? Human rights? Oh, right—those have already been obliterated, especially in the Middle East. I hope that the rest of the world, especially the Global South, as named by the developed world, begins to peel off the veil from its eyes. Stripping itself of the epistemological imperialist self-colonization might be very good to start!
(The writer is a Political and International Affairs Analyst)
