Capitalism didn't do that. The beginnings of free trade were entirely imperial, at a time when capitalism was considered a radical and unsafe belief. Globalism would follow the expansionist policy of colonial powers which created interdependent trade networks along most of the routes sailors traveled regularly. Again - this modernization all happened during a time when imperial power struggles were the only respected way to rule. Capitalism is a post-globalist policy that was only enabled by socialized, government-commissioned expeditions.

What we know today as "capitalism" isn't even a pure or strongly-defined form of it. Laissez-faire policy wasn't able to survive without government intervention, so modern capitalism settled on being a moderate form of socialist republic. You cannot have an American economy without government intervention - the diametric comparison of communist economies to "capitalist" ones is a faux-pas that even first-year political science students don't make. Both forms of government rely on both private and socialized wealth, and neither of them can righteously claim direct heritage to the colonial expansionism that made their governments possible in the first place.

The conversation today is asking what the government's role is here. In the wake of Europe's Digital Market Act, it's plainly apparent that America's entrenched lobbyists have been hemming up serious antitrust proceedings for decades. Capitalist countries can and do regularly disagree over how capitalism instantiates itself and controls the conditions of a free market.