
The Trouble With Compulsory Globalism
Commentary
For years, I've resisted deploying the word globalism with approbation because international cooperation is a good thing. Travel is glorious and so is the freedom to trade and migrate. How did the practice of freedom as it extends over national juridical lines come to be so widely loathed and disparaged?
There is a complicated story here that speaks to entanglements between states, industry, finance, multinational government structures, and the control of a people over regimes.
The COVID experience revealed all. The response was notably global, nearly all nations locking down in the same way at roughly the same time, enforcing the same protocols and issuing the same remedies (more or less).
The World Health Organization seemed to be calling the shots, with national public health agencies deferring on point after point. The virus itself seems to have emerged from within the structure of multilateral research on both pathogens and possible pharmaceutical countermeasures.
In addition, central banks all over the world cooperated to fund the extreme policy response, printing money like never before to stop full economic collapse under forced closures. Nations like Sweden and Nicaragua that went their own way were demonized by media all over the world in the exact same way.
Related Stories
4/23/2025
4/23/2025
National legislatures had no role in the initial lockdowns. They were excluded from decision-making. This means that the people who elected them were disenfranchised too. No one voted for six feet of distance, business closures, and shot mandates. They were imposed by administrative edicts, and nowhere did judicial systems stop them.
Democracy as an idea, plus the rule of law, died in those months and years, deferring always to the global institutions and financial systems that assumed
de facto
control of the planet. It was the most astonishing show of universal power on the historical record.
Given the results, it is hardly a shock to see the backlash, which has centered on a reassertion of the rights of nations and the citizens thereof.
Many defenders of human liberty (right and left) are often uncomfortable with the ethos of the backlash and wonder whether and to what extent there is good historical precedent for reclaiming sovereignty in the name of freedom.
I'm here to say that such a precedent exists, with some discussion of a historical episode that is almost wholly forgotten.
It is well known that the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 included portions that dealt with international monetary settlement (the gold-exchange standard) as well as finance and banking (the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank). Many people are also aware of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1948)
What is not known is that GATT was a fallback position. The original draft of Bretton Woods included an International Trade Organization (ITO) that was to be empowered to manage all global trade flows. It was drafted in 1944 and codified in the Havana Charter of 1948. There was a tremendous push at the time on the part of major governments and corporations to ratify this agreement as a treaty.
The ITO was to rule the world, with oligarchs seizing control in the name of globalization.
It was defeated, and why? It was not because of opposition from protectionists and mercantilists. The main opponents of the ITO were in fact free traders and economic libertarians. The campaign to trash the treaty was led by French-American economist Philip Cortney and his barnburner book called
'The ITO Charter is a monument to wishful thinking,' he wrote, 'a bureaucratic dream that ignores the hard realities of national economies. It promises free trade but delivers shackles, binding nations to rules that cannot bend with the storms of inflation or scarcity.'
He and others in his orbit could detect the hand not of freedom in this charter but rather central planning, corporatism, inflationism, fiscal planning, industrial policy, and managed trade—in short, what today is called globalism. He was dead set against it, precisely because he believed it would set back the legitimate cause of free trade and submerge national sovereignty into a bureaucratic morass.
The objections he had were many, but among them were those centered on issues of monetary settlement. Nations would be locked into a tariff regime with no flexibility to adjust currency values based on trade flows. There was a genuine danger under the ITO, he believed, that nations would lack the ability to adapt based on changes in exchange rates or other specifics of time and place. Even though the charter seemed to push free trade, Cortney believed it would ultimately undermine it.
He further believed that if nations were to open up their economies to international competition from all corners of the world, it should be done in a way that was consistent with democratic governance and national plebiscites. An iron-handed global government imposing such a regime would contradict the whole history of the structure against mercantilism, and would likely be abused by the largest firms in industry and finance to game their system in a way that benefited themselves.
What's striking about the argument is that it came from a liberal/libertarian point of view that favored traditional methods of obtaining free trade, while opposing what today would be called globalist means of getting there.
Indeed, Ludwig von Mises
It was Cortney, alongside his ideological compatriots in business and editorial writing, who ultimately torpedoed the Havana Charter and sent the International Trade Organization into the dustbin of history.
To be clear, the rejection of the ITO was not a result of activism by reactionaries, socialists, protectionists, or even economic nationalists. It was rejected by strong proponents of economic liberalism, free trade, and commercial business interests dominated by small- and medium-sized firms that feared being swallowed up by the globalist morass.
These people distrusted bureaucracy in general and global bureaucracy especially. This was a principled generation and they were by then very aware of how something can sound fantastic in rhetoric but be awful in reality. They simply did not trust the gang in charge in those days to hammer out a sustainable trade arrangement for the world.
The rejection of the ITO is how and why we ended up with the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade. It was General, meaning not firm law. It was rooted in Agreement, meaning that no nation would be compelled against its interests. It was about tariffs but did not attempt some grand strategy to equalize all currency valuations. It was informal and not formal, decentralized not centralized.
GATT prevailed until 1995, when the World Trade Organization was shoved through under tremendous media and corporate pressure. It was a revival of the old ITO. By this time, the free-market crowd had lost its sophistication and went all in for the new global agency. As if to confirm Cortney's prediction, the WTO has now been rendered mostly obsolete, scapegoated for economic stagnation, deindustrialization, currency mismatches, and unsettled foreign accounts backed by foreign holdings of US dollar assets.
Now we face a backlash in the form of crude mercantilist policies arriving with fury. America has been the destination for vast products from China, now being blocked by high tariffs. In extraordinary irony, the
New York Times
is
Imagine that!
The balance between national sovereignty and freedom itself is a delicate one. Generations of intellectuals once knew that and were careful never to overthrow one to back the other. To permanently detach governing structures from citizen control, even if only through a periodic plebiscite, courts disaster even on topics like trade, to say nothing of infectious disease and virus research.
Thus has the revolt arrived, exactly as Philip Cortney would have predicted.
From the
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Robby's Radar: Elon Musk should join the Libertarian Party
I have an idea for Elon Musk: join the Libertarian Party! Actually, don't just join it — take it over! Let me explain. Musk and President Trump seem to have entered some kind of détente following their big blowup last week. The world's richest man is no longer tweeting constantly about Trump being on the Epstein client list, or about how he feels betrayed over the big beautiful bill, which will massively increase the deficit despite Republican promises to finally cut government spending. In fact, he's spent the last several days tweeting about the Los Angeles riots and the importance of emerging AI technology. Trump, for his part, is refusing to engage Elon with particular hostility. Trump recently told reporters that he would be keeping the Tesla he bought from Musk, that he would continue using Starlink, Musk's internet service, and that he wished Elon well. I try not to make political predictions, but it actually would not surprise me in the least if Trump and Elon makeup — or at the very least, if the Republican Party maintains a friendly enough connection to Elon so that the tech billionaire remains a financial backer of, say, Vice President JD Vance when he inevitably runs for president. But here's an alternative idea I'd like to plan in Musk's head, as he is currently party shopping. As a Libertarian Party member, and voter, I would be thrilled to welcome Elon into the party — and I suspect I wouldn't be alone. After all, the Libertarian Party is a natural fit for Elon, whose politics mostly seem to align with Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, the two most libertarian members of Congress in the Republican Party. Elon wants low taxes, lower spending, low regulation, and thinks the federal government's priorities should reflect that: Cut the deficit first, get our fiscal house in order, and worry about the other stuff later. He also wants government regulations to be friendly to technological growth, is particularly motivated to prevent censorship on social media, and thinks the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic was authoritarian. These are all textbook libertarian issues. What's more, the current trajectory of the Libertarian Party makes it ideal for some new leadership. For years, the party has been the nation's third or fourth largest, alongside the Green Party. In the 2016 election, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson received 4.5 million votes and about 3 percent of the national vote, a record at the time. In 2020, the Libertarian nominee received about 1 percent of the national vote. In both of those elections, it finished ahead of the Green Party. Behind the scenes, however, the party has gone through something for a transformation over the last two cycles. Johnson, the 2016 nominee, was perceived by some within the Libertarian Party as too liberal and mainstream — not based enough to attract contrarians and dissidents to the party. In response, a faction calling itself the Mises Caucus formed and attempted to take control of the party. In 2022, they succeeded. Their strategy was podcast-focused: Find people who listen to Joe Rogan and like-minded independent thinkers and draw them to the Libertarian Party. The strategy had a certain amount of merit. The party ended up flirting with Robert F Kennedy Jr., and found itself having significant audience overlap with him. But eventually, Kennedy made a quasi-endorsement of Trump and essentially withdrew from the presidential race. Meanwhile, at the Libertarian National Convention, delegates bucked the Mises Caucus and picked their least preferred candidate, Chase Oliver. In response, the Mises Caucus leadership barely tolerated the Libertarian candidate, hindering his campaign in numerous ways. The party's chairwoman, Angela McArdle, the highest-ranking Mises Caucus official, subsequently resigned from the party. The new chair is not a member of this faction and is trying to chart a more neutral course and reunite the party, though the Mises Caucus has vowed to retake control. So that's where we are now: The Libertarian Party could use some new people, some new leadership, and probably a new infusion of cash. If Elon Musk really wants to make Republicans sorry that they failed to live up to his expectations and cut government spending — but quite rationally believes that Democrats will never ever, ever do better — he might find he has the most in common with the ticket that gets my vote every year. Robbie Soave is co-host of The Hill's commentary show 'Rising' and a senior editor for Reason Magazine. This column is an edited transcription of his daily commentary. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Biden's COVID czar hammers RFK Jr. over vaccine panel overhaul
Former White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha, who served under President Biden, criticized the decision by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to fire all 17 experts on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) vaccine panel. Kennedy announced the decision in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal Monday, saying, 'A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.' But in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Jha pushed back against Kennedy's reasoning. 'Look what he said in his op-ed was a series of nonsense about a group of individuals, experts…who shape what vaccines, if any, are going to be available to the American people,' Jha said in the interview. 'So obviously this is very concerning,' he continued. 'We'll have to see who he appoints next. But this is a step in the wrong direction.' Jha said he is concerned about what the move foretells about the secretary's agenda on vaccines. Jha pointed to what he characterized as a lackluster response from the secretary to 'the worst measles outbreak of the last 25 years.' He also expressed concern about Kennedy raising questions about vaccines causing autism, which Jha dismissed and said was 'settled science.' 'Then you put this in the middle of all of that,' Jha said, referring to the vaccine panel sweep, 'and what you have is a pretty clear picture that what Secretary Kennedy is trying to do is make sure that vaccines are not readily available to Americans, not just for kids, for the elderly.' 'He could go pretty far with this move, and I really am worried about where we're headed,' Jha continued. He said he's particularly concerned about the effect Kennedy's move will have on kids and whether they will continue having access to certain vaccines in the future. 'Kids rely on vaccines. I'm worried about whether the next generation of kids are going to have access to polio vaccines and measles vaccines. That's where we're heading. That's what we have to push back against.' Kennedy said in his op-ed that he was removing every member of the panel to give the Trump administration an opportunity to appoint its own members. Kennedy has long accused ACIP members of having conflicts of interest, sparking concern among vaccine advocates that he would seek to install members who are far more skeptical of approving new vaccines. But Jha pushed back against criticism that the panel was all Biden-appointed experts, saying, 'When the Biden administration came in, almost all of the appointees had come from the first Trump administration.' 'That was fine because they were good people,' he said. 'They were experts. Right now, it's the same thing. The people he is firing are experts — like a nurse in Illinois who spent her entire career getting kids vaccinated, cancer doctors from Memorial Sloan Kettering — like these are really good people.' 'And generally, CDC has not worried about when were they appointed. The question is, are they good and are they conflict free.'


New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Mayor Adams' ‘emergency' spending is out of control — now NYC must hit the brakes
New Yorkers, like all Americans, tend to stock up when any crisis is about to hit: We fill up our gas tanks, empty the bread and egg shelves at grocery stores and buy enough toilet paper to last for months. It's human nature — and for far too long, New York City's government has been behaving the very same way. But City Hall's panic reaction is far worse, and does far more damage. Advertisement In recent emergencies, like the COVID-19 pandemic and the asylum-seeker influx, city government kept on 'crisis buying' for more than a year, without ever comparing prices or rooting out contractor abuse, fraud and waste. It's time for drastic change: We must reform the city's out-of-control emergency procurement practices and add vital checks and balances. Currently, when the mayor declares a state of emergency, the city's comptroller and corporation counsel suspend their ordinary oversight regarding contracts and procurement. Advertisement In theory, this allows City Hall to respond quickly and obtain necessary goods and services to alleviate the crisis. In practice, it means the city can award no-bid contracts for up to one year — contracts that, having bypassed the competitive bidding that's normally required, can be rife with waste and abuse. Imagine purchasing a car or searching for your next apartment without competitively price-shopping for those big-ticket items. That's what City Hall does whenever the mayor declares an emergency. City agencies aren't even required to send 'emergency' contracts to the comptroller for auditing before laying out taxpayer cash. In fact, 84% of such contracts filed between January 2022 and September 2023 were submitted more than 31 days after the contract start date. Advertisement Both Mayor Eric Adams and former Mayor Bill de Blasio spent billions of dollars on the asylum-seeker and COVID crises, respectively, drawing multiple allegations of corruption and pay-to-play politics. This uncontrolled spending was especially acute during the pandemic, as de Blasio extended 'emergency' contracts a whopping 100-plus times and spent nearly $7 billion on emergency supplies with no oversight or limiting guardrails. In the private sector, affordability is a prime factor when choosing bids on contracts. The city's emergency procurement process throws such considerations to the wind, leading to reckless overspending. During COVID, City Hall paid top dollar for ventilators and N95 masks it never received — and in one case, paid an absurd $7.50 apiece for cloth masks. Advertisement Its fire sale of nearly $224 million worth of COVID-era surplus items, from ventilators to face shields, only recouped $500,000, a downright outrage. The current administration is no better, awarding a $432 million emergency contract for asylum-seeker services to an untested company called DocGo. Its dreadful performance — with problems like chronic food waste, moldy hotel rooms, unlicensed security guards and an uncredentialed CEO who was forced to resign — resulted in an investigation by the state attorney general. Even in non-emergency circumstances, the city has never reined in city contractors who utilize loopholes to enrich themselves. Take the company owned by David Levitan, listed as one of New York City's worst landlords. For over a quarter century, the city has repeatedly used Levitan's properties as homeless shelters — buildings with rotted floors, broken elevators, rat infestations and peeling lead paint. Levitan has even required some of the nonprofits operating shelters within his buildings to subcontract with his own maintenance or extermination companies to service the properties — reaping even more revenue from our tax dollars. It's time for reform, top to bottom. Advertisement Emergencies, by their very definition, are short in duration. Accordingly, they should necessitate a strictly time-limited use of no-bid contracts, for instances when competitive bidding will truly hinder the city's response. That's why I am introducing two bills in the New York City Council this week to update our lackadaisical, irresponsible procurement processes. These bills will limit all emergency contracts to 30 days, unless both the comptroller and corporation counsel approve of an extension. If passed, the laws will require all contracts be sent to the comptroller for auditing within 15 days of signing, and will increase subcontractor transparency with fines of up to $100,000 for not disclosing to the city any conflicts of interest or competing contractual obligations. Advertisement New York's broken contracting system has price-gouged our taxpayers for far too long — and recent mayoral administrations have shown no appetite to follow good-government procurement practices. It's up to the City Council to advance this vital legislation, saving precious fiscal resources, restoring responsibility and rooting out corruption. City Council Member Julie Menin (D) represents the East Side of Manhattan and chairs the Consumer and Worker Protection Committee.