Who cares about speeches? It's policy that matters. Chinese leaders actually pursue nationalist economic policy, while the US leaders dress up globalization with nationalist rhetoric.
But the world kind of remembers your last 2 administration and knows that they can change just back next election.
And china seems to be focused on free global trade as well. Trade embargos are more known for the US.
Geopolitics is really not that simple.
All of them since the 80s at least (except for Trump, but he's not representative of the class "US leaders").
> And china seems to be focused on free global trade as well. Trade embargos are more known for the US.
What do embargos have to do with anything? Chinese leaders might be OK with free global trade, given the kinds of controls they have on domestic market access, they aren't really committed to "free trade" like the US has been.
He was the last elected US president and was almost elected a 2. time.
So like it or not, but to the world, he is a very strong current representative of a US leader. And yes, a very nationalistic one at that. Who can be back to power very soon, or someone like him.
> He was the last elected US president and was almost elected a 2. time.
1) "US leaders" encompasses more than the presidency, and 2) at this point Trump is an n=1 aberration and no one can say if any patterns have changed.
The overall US leadership class has internalized the dogma of free trade, to the point of openly and uncritically accepting the national-level negatives (de-industrialization, etc.). I'm extremely skeptical that any other Republican besides Trump would deploy protectionist policies like tariffs or bully business leaders into doing something that puts the nation in front of their shareholders.
I see, and this is why the US is enforcing so many global trade embargos?
And as for the collateral of them, here in eastern germany the economy suffered a lot by the embargos against russia - as did many other branches in europe. I doubt the US economy was hit by it in any significant way by comparison.
Or that the US was (and is) using massive pressure, so that germany abandones north stream (a pipeline to get russian gas directly) and rather buys cheap US fracking gas?
So sorry, but I can't really take the "free global trade" rhetoric much serious. The US is pro free trade for sure, but only as long as US interests are not hurt too much.
And all of this happens with or without Trump.
You're not getting it. Embargos are neither here nor there, what matters is how they treat the domestic economy. They've let important bits whither, get outsourced, or slip out of their control through foreign acquisitions (which are default-allow), all often with great negative effects for the actual citizens they represent. That shows you where their commitments are.
Most (all?) countries look after themselves, their borders, their people etc and don’t honestly care about others. Whether this is right or wrong - that is a different question. But let’s not pretend some political leaders are saints and others aren’t.
commitments to free trade and globalization.
Sure, because it helps their country and their economy. They aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Global politics is not about right and wrong or love and friendship - it is about profit and loss, strength and weakness, convenience and opportunity…
> And the US leaders are not?
Way less so, as displayed in their commitments to free trade and globalization.