The events of recent days related to the presidential election campaign in the United States, to promise serious consequences around the world.
After winning Donald trump in the primaries in Indiana two of his last rival in the fight for the Republican nomination came out of the race.
<blockquote>
Most likely, to prevent a scandalous billionaire participation in elections as the candidate of the “Grand old party” will not succeed (although the attempt at the Congress to be).
</blockquote>
Regardless of the outcome (the odds of Hillary Clinton winning in this competition are great) this means a major political upheaval, a shift in the attitudes of American society.
Barack Obama published a column in the Washington Post. The US President once again, but even more rigidly than before, declared that America had joined the allies have to write global trade rules that not allowing to do this to anyone else, especially to China (in plain text).
The article contains a direct reference to the election campaign, in which Chinese theme plays a prominent role. A practical goal is to achieve early ratification by Congress of the TRANS-Pacific partnership (TPP), a trade and economic agreement signed in November last year, 12 Asia-Pacific countries under the auspices of Washington.
Official Paris declared unwillingness and reluctance at the moment to sign the Transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) — European-American analog of TPP, the negotiations which the Obama administration hopes to complete before leaving the political arena in January 2016. This warning had resonance in other countries of Western Europe, especially in Germany. And he was preceded by the leak of classified materials about the process, which showed that
<blockquote>
The United States have on the EU severe pressure, forcing them to accept the conditions, disadvantageous to the United Europe.
</blockquote>
These three news stand in one row, as shown, in which direction is the policy of the most powerful nation on the planet, the priorities and approaches which determine global trends.
Trump was a real shock for the political establishment. No one could not assume that his outrageous and openly provocative manner swept away a dozen much more experienced opponents, with extensive connections.
<blockquote>
The phenomenon of trump — the ability to lead on the previously passive sections of the population, impoverished the middle class, those who are more scared of rolling backwards down the social ladder.
</blockquote>
Construction magnate from Queens offers a clear answer, who is guilty — corrupt and has forgotten about the people of the ruling class, who, instead of caring about ordinary Americans and their own economy opens the country for cheap labor (Mexicans) and cheap goods (China).
<blockquote>
Trump plays in the actually existing and the growing gap everywhere: an increasingly globalized participating in international processes of higher layer lives in other Affairs and concerns than most, still linked to the national soil.
</blockquote>
It happens everywhere, not only in the United States. European protest party — a product of the same contradictions, just in the Old World their enemy and even institutionalized — the European Union, soulless supranational and no one elected bureaucracy.
The recent scandal with Panamanian offshore companies, which in Moscow with our inherent delusions of persecution was interpreted as anti-Russian provocation, in fact, the campaign is much more ambitious. No better confirmation of how the global elite (including non-Western countries) lives in the global financial world, refusing even to pay taxes to your own budget.
<blockquote>
The phenomenon of trump and Bernie Sanders (Democrat-socialist, another opening of the campaign) demonstrates that really care about the society and how people are alienated from “superiors”.
</blockquote>
And it knows it. The article is Obama — an example of “counter-attack”. The US President assures the citizens and the Congress that the above-mentioned problem is solved by the conclusion of new large agreements, so that others not impose their economic and trade domination.
Persuading the domestic audience, the White house goes on openly anti-Chinese rhetoric emphasizes exactly who is the target. This phenomenon is quite unprecedented. Liberal globalization has always been a strong fact that the words brushed aside “zero-sum game”. At its core lay the claim that the proposed rules are universal and equitable, aimed against no one, and therefore all the best.
<blockquote>
The rejection of this fundamental postulate leads to serious change.
</blockquote>
The United States as the leader of the global processes of the late 1980-ies actually recognized changing your approach. Instead of managing a single world economy, as it was assumed before, the policy of fragmentation, the creation of a us-centric core, opposed to the rest.
Therefore, it is necessary to make a choice: either to integrate into the much tougher Western institutions (partnership under American control) or to seek new ways to ensure their own growth and development in conditions of still interdependent, but not integral to the global economy.
In Europe it is a growing oscillation. In China — the painful realization that the model of development, which gave the country three and will take decades of growth, rooted in the past. Unlike Russia, which likes to shoot from the hip, especially in words, Beijing is reacting cautiously, not wanting to do irreversible steps. Here is the response to a sharp attack on Obama was very low-key.
<blockquote>
This, however, does not mean that China is prepared to adapt to any role they offer him the United States.
</blockquote>
On the contrary, recent actions — from the formulation of the concept of “One road, one belt” and support the idea of regional Comprehensive economic partnership to a consistent military buildup, it is argued that Beijing is looking for ways to 1) bypass the American model, 2) to be able in an extreme scenario, to resist it.
China has nothing to do is not wanted. It more than satisfied with the position of the 1980-2000-ies, when the country without declaring big ambitions, skillfully used the opportunities provided by the liberal American-style globalization. And now the rejection of the usual and quite comfortable system is difficult.
But American politics the chance to return to the past leaves. In the election campaign sounds or a call to restrict free trade at all (the majority of Republicans, and it is worth remembering that against TTP spoke even Clinton), or to put it solely in the service of America, reducing the opportunities of other (Obama).
Elections, of course, will end, and the elected President, whoever he may be, will have to pursue a more subtle policy towards external partners. However, the public mood will not disappear, and America will continue to change towards greater protectionism.
<blockquote>
And that’s the end of the model of globalization of the late XX — early XXI century and the beginning of something entirely new.
</blockquote>
For Russia and China this means that development strategies can no longer be based on the idea of integrating into the “American world” — not there anymore either invite or offer conditions that confuse even the closest allies of Washington.
