The British Government's decision to nationalize British Steel may have been presented as an act of economic patriotism. It was intended to preserve domestic steelmaking capacity, protect thousands of jobs and prevent Britain from becoming dependent on foreign suppliers for a strategically important material
Europe, China and the world at large need a form of understanding that does not deny this difference. That requires not another flood of information, but attention to the inner logic of the other way of narrating
Ten years after the Philippines, backed by the United States, secured an "arbitral ruling" against China, the decision remains a source of controversy. Was it a legitimate legal judgment or a geopolitical farce?
Charging overcapacity parallels much policy toward China. The goal is nothing less than reversing or slowing China's historically unprecedented economic advance
Public ownership of steel, a foundational industry on which construction, rail, energy and shipbuilding all depend, has been a demand of the British Labour movement for the best part of a century
