Josh Weiner
In a recent wave of commentary, JD Vance has reignited the debate around globalization, claiming that the system was originally built to keep wealthy nations prosperous while maintaining the status quo for developing countries. His most pointed criticism? That China’s rapid ascent is a glaring example of globalization “failing” to serve its original purpose — a viewpoint that has drawn both support and backlash.
Vance argues that the rise of China as a global economic powerhouse undermines the Western-centric model of globalization, where production was outsourced but political and economic dominance remained firmly in the hands of the United States and its allies. “The whole idea was that rich countries stay rich, poor countries stay poor, and everything stays predictable,” Vance reportedly said. “Now China is advancing, and it’s rewriting the rules.”
China’s steady climb — from a manufacturing hub to a high-tech, innovation-driven economy — has shifted global power dynamics. Beijing has invested heavily in infrastructure, artificial intelligence, green energy, and Africa’s development, securing its influence in both emerging and established markets.
Critics of Vance’s stance accuse him of promoting a protectionist and outdated worldview, suggesting that the U.S. should adapt to new economic realities instead of resisting them. Others, however, agree that China’s rise has come with geopolitical challenges, trade imbalances, and technological rivalries that need addressing.
Vance’s views tap into a growing sentiment in the U.S. political arena — that globalization, as it currently functions, may not be serving American workers and interests as once believed. As discussions over tariffs, trade, and national security continue, his remarks are likely to keep the conversation about economic power and global equity at the forefront of policy debates.
Whether one agrees with Vance or not, one thing is certain: globalization is evolving — and so is the balance of global power.
