Tag: China

The International Liberal Order is not Under Attack It’s Just Being Interrogated

Posted on by Moshi Isreal

Proponents of the International Liberal order have spent much of its lifespan trying to shield it from criticism. They’ve actively masked its shortcomings, dismissing any flaws and Inconsistencies. A fortune has been spent on media influence campaigns and another on military campaigns to re-inforce this ideal, all to keep the rules based order well made up and hide any signs of cracking. Whether these costly efforts to preserve the sanctity of the liberal order were worth it as opposed to facing the reality of its challenges remains an open question. But here we are, it did not work. At least not in the way that the costume designers intended. The make-up still flaked and the cracks still showed. But even then, the ever zealous stylists insisted: the show must go- on.

Now, more countries are asking questions about the undisputed beauty of the rules based order and predictably, those who spent years crafting its reputation and covering up its shortcomings view this mere questioning as an attack. They overreact because deep down they are aware that the package they are marketing is not complete but hoped no one else would notice or even dare to speak up about it. This panic has made China’s genuine interrogation of the liberal order come off as an outright challenge and attack. But China will not relent and the global south has picked up the scent too.

In his book 21 lessons for the 21st century, Yuval Noah Harari argues that many critics of the liberal system point out its problems but fail to offer solutions. On this point, I beg to differ. China has offered a workable solution. It’s not pushing for the overthrow of the liberal system but rather an upgrade. China’s proposal essentially keeps many of the good things about the liberal order; Free trade, international institutions, cultural exchange, sovereignty and non-aggression, democracy and human rights—at least in principle and advocates for it to be more just and inclusive. It recognizes that the fundamental problem of the liberal order lies in its western-centric nature. And this nature automatically breeds structural inequality for all the rest. And that is China’s biggest crime in the eyes of the liberal order’s stylists: insisting that the system live up to its aspirations.

The liberal order has seen inequality widen among and within nations. The gap between the rich and the poor has significantly increased. When it comes to income, the richest 10% globally make 52% of the global income while the poorest half make only 8%. The wealth gap is even more astounding with the richest 10% owning 76% of global wealth while the poorest just owns 2%. This disparity extends to climate injustice. The wealthiest nations emit more greenhouse gases in total and per capita compared to the poorest nations and yet it’s the latter that bear the brunt of the consequences; floods, drought, food insecurity, and displacement.

We have recently gone through a global pandemic that claimed millions and tested the strength of global solidarity and are now facing a global economic downturn coupled with a surge in regional conflicts that risk escalating into something worse. The InfoTech and Biotech sectors are increasingly running out of control of public oversight, unemployment and the threat of future unemployment are on the rise and many countries are now looking to build physical, economic and ideological walls instead of bridges.

China, more than any nation seems to recognize this impasse and is proposing an alternative approach to global political management. China’s current political ideology and system are always misunderstood either deliberately or out of ignorance. The Chinese managed to borrow the best ideas from ideological currents of the modern world; Nationalism, communism and liberalism.

The Chinese are nationalists at the core with a strong identity that they revere. They have adapted a ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ that respects their unique identity and national realities and have chosen to participate and contribute to the global liberal order through their opening up and consistent advocacy for the rule of law and respect to international institutions. The Chinese have not made the mistake of assuming that one system is better than all and fits all national contexts. They have applied logic to international relations and let humans control the system instead of having systems control humans. They have chosen ideological pragmatism instead of ideological purity.

Should China continue on its current trajectory, it will avoid the classic trap of ideology. Essentially, humans should inform and shape ideology instead of ideology governing and informing humans. Ideologies should evolve with new experiences, data and moral insight. When ideologies inform humans, they risk becoming too rigid and form into dogma. This creates a system that resists change, punishes dissent and caters to the few. China’s concept of whole process democracy caters to all—this is why it has had a lot of success with lifting millions out of extreme poverty which is arguably the most democratic outcome of our time.

On the other hand, the West’s democratic systems or most liberal democracies allow for endless democratic processes but often produce very undemocratic outcomes. Question is; what’s the point of choosing a leader every four or so years if the life of most citizens remain unchanged or even worsen? I propose we should adapt a system that would give both in a form that respects national contexts.

While the West has managed to democratize to some extent internally, this success has failed to reflect on the international stage. This could simply indicate that while the liberal ideology in its pure form may work most of the time within western societies, it needs some adjustments when applied globally and within different national contexts.

Currently, we are witnessing the logical conclusion of liberalism within western societies. Ironically, it is liberalism itself that enables the rise of illiberal actors, who reject the very system that elevates them. In other words, liberal societies can elect a fascist or communist leader or leaders that generally reject liberal norms. In theory, the system is designed to contain such outcomes or their consequences through checks and balances but what happens when a liberal system fails to contain illiberal ideas or allows for its tenets to be dismantled from within? This is no longer a hypothetical because current upheavals within Europe and the United States indicate we are already at this stage of the equation.

A system that promised progress seems to have hit a wall and can now only offer paralysis. The liberal order is crashing in on itself—stuck in a cycle where the tools of democracy can be used to un make democracy itself. Even worse, the stylists are stuck in a loop. If they push too hard against the flaking of democracy within then they create a whole new monster. They will be viewed by the citizens as resisting or impeding the democratic will of the people—fighting against the very system they advertised as perfect.

So, the choice is no choice at all, let the will of the people prevail no matter how dangerous or fight against the people and hope for the best. It’s a fight to save the aesthetic—an image of a system that has to be seen as working and offering hope to all. But illusions cannot govern forever, eventually the people begin to see through the make-up, the show can no longer go on as usual, the system must either evolve or collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. China is ringing the alarm now, it’s not attacking the liberal order, it’s just ahead of the curve.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre

 

US Tariffs Contradicts WTO Rules on Fair Trade and Non Discrimination

Posted on by Ernest Talwana

The current US administration has continued the rhetoric of the previous Trump administration (2016-2020) which includes placing trade barriers against China amongst a litany of actions including barriers on Chinese EVs entering the US market (carefully avoiding placing tariffs on Chinese rare earth metals critical to US defense and aviation industries). This time round, the current administration has opted to place tariffs on all nations and territories  across the planet (with the exception of Russia).

These actions contradict World Trade Organisation agreements on Trade Without Discrimination which asserts equal treatment for all parties under said rules that the US is party to.

Freer Trade through negotiation is equally envisaged by said rules. These rules equally desire gradual and progressive liberation. Something the current US administration is rallying against by putting America First.

Predictability through transparency is equally significant amongst trade partners. Uneven tariffs can be viewed as acting against stated principles and creates strain on well established trade relations.

The Uruguay round of talks therefore placed a ceiling on custom tariffs which would avoid any form of unpredictability that causes strain on global supply chains and unnecessarily raises the coat of doing business.

The current American administration thus disregards the rules based order and seeks to act in her own interests while affecting global trade as a whole, subsequently causing price hikes for American citizens as well as creating shocks on global stock markets.

It should be noted that global supply chains are dependent on free trade. Not the restriction of it with tariffs. Tariffs only act to protect one party while causing economic slowdown.

In an economic war, there are no clear winners. Any form of concession another party seeks to achieve will be offset by losses incurred through higher production costs and strains on the end consumer who foots a higher bill to buy the same commodity.

China’s complaints at the World Trade Organisation are done in an effort to promote fair trade amongst a comity of nations. China doesn’t actively seek to antagonise other nations. Rather, to promote her own interests while building her trade and industrial capacity in a dynamic world.

China equally has bilateral trade agreements with a variety of nations across the globe. This means that countries are aware of China’s competence and willingness to trade. These include Austria, the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

China has built these relationships through her culture of mutuality and trust. A culture deeply embedded in China’s millennia old cultural fabric and permeates throughout her society and international relations.  It is no surprise that many nations are seeking trade relationships with her. China is equally the leading trade partner with the MERCOSUR regional bloc with the Uruguayan President seeking to fast-track negotiations on a free trade area with China.  This includes 30 free trade agreements with a variety of nations across the planet. Aside from the more dominant states, China is equally a dominant Economic and regional player in the Pacific region.

American tariffs underestimate China’s resilience, adaptability and the versatility of Chinese supply chains and her global trade apparatus. Any pain the US hopes to inflict on China is grossly overestimated as China has shown throughout her history a capacity to withstand greater pains.

US Tariff hikes can also be seen as a deprivation of the Global South’s right to development as asserted by the Chinese MFA Spokesperson. Developing states utilise WTO Rules to negotiate global trade through negotiation and deliberation. The actions by the United States signal eonomic coercion and exceptionalism which contradict the desire for a fair system that promotes growth and development of all nations in line with the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Furthermore, it should be stated that WTO Rules promote fair competition which protectionism stands antithetical to. Protectionism limits innovation and dulls an economy’s ability to challenge itself in the face of competition from other global players.

Protectionism isolates a nation from the rest of the world and causes possible stagnation in the face of changing trends in consumer preferences.

A nation only thrives when it acknowledges competition in all its forms. Not close itself to it.

The writer is a research fellow at Sino-Uganda Research Centre.

Trump’s Tariffs  Have Nothing to Do With a Fair World; It’s A Boomerang Trick to Contain China

Posted on by Abdurahim Ssemanda

The United States President, Donald Trump’s relentless habit of slapping tariffs on other countries has created what I can without doubt call “the politics of beam balance”—with Trump’s tariff situation on one hand and China’s President, Xi Jinping’s inclusivity on the other. In other words, Trump’s tariff situation lands us in a more direct situation of “protectionism” versus “inclusivity” in which the president of the U.S is hungry and longs for a solution that can at least cause equilibrium—a sigh of relief from China’s ever growing economic prowess as the world’s second largest economy which even threatens the United States’ long-term known superiority which politicians in Washington wrongly believe is a preserve of only the US!

Ever since the liberal French economist and businessman, Jean-Baptiste Say, coined the term “protectionism.” President Trump’s tariffs on other countries have given the term a fresh breath of practical existence with a great force even much more than the term had gained widespread use in the mid-20th century during heavy industrialization, trade agreements and economic nationalism.

However, from my angle of perspective, to break China’s economic backbone and strength, trade tariffs against China cannot be a viable solution but rather an economic self torment on Trump’s side. His tarifs which are in all design a gamble to contain China’s rise will certainly boomerang! China is not only the second-largest global power but also a mirror that plays a role in exposing the US indirectly across the globe. Whichever steps Trump takes against China, they leave the US isolated and bare. Secondly, it is not about just tariffs that China’s economic power can be realized. However, it requires a deep analysis of the core factors that made China achieve its position today. Such a core factor is inclusivity.

Just like the prominent American poet and novelist, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, asserted that, The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight; but they, while their companions slept, were toiling upward in the night, China’s rise to global prominence should not be viewed as a sudden and an unexpected phenomenon. As such, no country should be tempted to believe that the same country’s prowess could be taken down suddenly by tariffs. There is a dire need to closely examine China’s foreign policy in which the major tenet is building a community of shared future for mankind, mutual respect and win-win cooperation with the rest of the world.

To realize this, a quick dive into China’s history clearly shows that from Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms in the 1970s to Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) today, China’s leadership has consistently pursued a long-term vision for the country’s global engagement and building a world where every country thrives with others in harmony rather than hegemony. This is the starting point of “inclusivity” which from the beginning was and is still deeply rooted in China’s steps to her development.

In just two years after the death of Chairman Mao, China’s Deng Xiaoping introduced a number of reforms but the most intriguing one among all was the Economic Liberalization reform. This was meant to revive China’s economy from shambles and shift it from centrally planned as it had been stagnated by the Gang of Four, to a market-oriented economy through the 1978 policy “Reform and Opening-Up.” Under this policy, Deng Xiaoping encouraged private enterprise, foreign investment and trade.

Soon after 1978, in his opening speech at the twelfth National Congress of the Communist Party of China on 1st September 1982, Deng Xiaoping emphasized the policy of “Opening to the outside world.” This was the kick-start to inclusivity. In his own words, he remarked that “We shall unswervingly follow a policy of opening to the outside world and increase our exchanges with foreign countries on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.” It is from this point that terms like “win-win” cooperation gained observance on the international scene especially with their roots traced not elsewhere but from Asia and China in particular. This is so simply because China started identifying itself with the rest of the world. It realized that it could peacefully and harmoniously develop and coexist with other nations.

China’s intensified spirit of inclusivity gained much momentum with Deng Xiaoping’s era. For example, on May 7th 1978, amidst the struggle to achieve four modernizations, Xiaoping remarked that, “Once we have accomplished the four modernizations and the national economy has expanded, our contributions to mankind, and especially to the Third World, will be greater. As a socialist country, China shall always belong to the Third World and shall never seek hegemony. This idea is understandable because China is still quite poor, and is therefore a Third World country in the real sense of the term. The question whether or not China will practice hegemony when it becomes more developed in the future. My friens, you are younger than I, so you will be able to see for yourselves what happens at the time. If it remains a socialist country, China will not practice hegemony and it will belong to the Third World. Should China become arrogant, however, act like an overlord and give orders to the world, it would no longer be considered a Third World country. Indeed, it would cease to be a socialist country.”

That enough, indicates how China had set itself to coexist with the world, identify itself with the rest parts of the world and foster development for all. Most especially, the development of Third World countries was given much attention. It is thus not surprising that by 1976, as poor as China was and economically staggering, the Tazara Railway—linking Dar es Salaam in Tanzania to Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia had been completed. This railway, one of China’s most iconic early projects in Africa, remained a focal point of Sino-Africa cooperation during 1982-1990.

In the most previous days, President Trump branded China “the biggest abuser of tariffs.” This is part of the reflection that he is realizing the impracticality of his tariffs. Moments before, we had witnessed China, Japan and South Korea reaching an agreement to jointly respond to US tariffs. This further reflects the spirit of inclusivity for which China has groomed in other countries it operates with.

It is worth noting that by 2024, Africa-China trade reached USD 300 billion while that of Africa-US hit USD 72 billion. This serves to reflect China as the biggest African trade partner over the US. This clearly shows that China is not relying on exports to the US as a sole consumer and market. It learned so quickly that the US is a camouflaging economy especially one that prides in tariffs and sanctions. As a result, China intensified her spirit of inclusivity and shifted her goal posts to other countries like in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), in Africa and in the Middle East. Her foreign policy has heavily built on principles of mutual respect, amity, win-win cooperation and China has been a firm supporter of other countries’ development efforts emphasizing the need to support and build a community of shared future and prosperity for mankind.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Center.

 

Why U.S Plan For D.R Congo Question Good for U.S not Kishasha

Posted on by Alan Collins Mpewo

Massad Boulos, the United States (US) senior advisor for Africa was on Thursday, April 17, 2025
introduced in style. Or did he introduce himself in style. The entrance into the role in Africa is the
most interesting because he was introduced at a time when there is a lot happening globally, but
importantly, Democratic Republic of Congo – the raging war between the D.R Congo government
in Kinshasa, the Rwanda backed M23 rebel faction. He started the introduction by highlighting the
U.S concerns towards D.R Congo under Trump, before unveiling the grand plan his country has for
not only D.R Congo, but the East Africa Region, with “America first.” Massad Boulos is yet
another visitor in the D.R Congo. His visit will be a strategic entrance that will have long standing
effects with the understanding of today’s contemporary matters.He made it clear that the US is pro
peace and only looks forward towards peaceful existence of the East Africa region to which D.R
Congo is instrumental because of the effects it pauses to the global economy if the war continues.

Addressing African media and researchers, Massad Boulos, unveiled the U.S grand plan for the D.R
Congo stated that the U.S calls upon M23 to withdraw its operations from the country, adding that
Rwanda should cease with immediate effect funding of the M23 rebels. He maintained the
allegation of Rwanda backing the M23 rebels in D.R Congo throughout his communications, an
indicator of the U.S position on the conflict. The U.S might have become another official Rwanda
diplomatic enemy in light of Rwanda’s reaction to other countries that have openly stated their
opposing positions towards Rwanda. Massad Boulos intimated how he has been on a busy schedule
in the past weeks on the Africa continent, meeting among others, the current head of the East Africa
Community, H.E William Ruto, President of the Republic of Kenya, Rwandan President Paul
Kagame and officials in Kampala.

D.R Congo is one such country that will never run out of ‘friends’. History has shown that, and the
keen observers know that this ‘friendship’ has been posited on various factors, but mineral wealth.
Looked at closely, D.R Congo has been having the conflict ongoing for a long time, with M23-
Rwanda-D.R Congo occasionally making headlines to regional body discussions like the EAC,
SADC, and Africa Union, and internationally to the United Nations Assembly. Now that the U.S
withdrew fulfilling much of its obligations to the U.N, all eyes are on Massad Boulos’s grand plan.
With diplomacy during war, intentions are advised to be reviewed from beneath rather than from the
onset. Afghanistan and Ukraine are world examples whose mention of U.S involvement will never
be erased. Massad Boulos noted that peace in D.R Congo will be beneficial for every nation
globally, but with a major focus on economic stability. No doubts about that.

But the eye opener of Massad Boulos’s highlights was that there are companies of U.S origin whose
operations were affected by the advances by the M23. He called for a win-win diplomatic
conversation of key players, as a stair-way for U.S companies to make penetration into the D.R
Congo markets. In the various analyses by Development Watch Centre regarding the D.R Congo
question, what has been maintained is the need for honest diplomacy in the bid to achieve long
lasting peace in D.R Congo. It is therefore shocking to wonder what makes Massad Boulos think
that the questionable U.S economic diplomacy will be the key to unlocking the much sought peace
in D.R Congo.

The EAC and SADC not so long ago had their armies in D.R Congo, both having later withdrawn
due to various geopolitical realities. The new African Union Secretariat has been on a spree of talks
for the concerned parties in the ongoing war. The United Nations security council has before it
ongoing discussions with China’s backed Global Security Initiative framework lingering for
realising longlasting peace. But Massad Boulos believes the U.S can pull off the magic of the

century in the D.R Congo. History laughs in the face of any such plans. The U.S now faces much
criticism under the Trump administration because of its foreign policy. It therefore goes without
saying how interesting it is that Massad Boulos intends to solve the D.R Congo question by
engaging countries that the U.S imposed tariffs on, and suspended from AGOA, while using an
economic policy of laying a foundation for U.S private sector investment into the region. But it is
not surprising because of the growing list of allies the U.S is losing by day.

The U.S and Ukraine deal on rare earth stands at great risks, China has recently reciprocated tariffs
on some rare earth that the U.S has been benefiting from, the European Union is on guard, and what
a way to seek a solution, but from a war stricken D.R Congo. Massad Boulos, just like his bosses in
Washington D.C is aware of the U.S steady decline of influence globally, and for long, Africa had
been neglected on its radar. Now with the East refusing to bend the knee, and growing economic
uncertainties, D.R Congo has been pointed to as the antidote. But certainly, peace will not be
achieved in D.R Congo through such an entrance as highlighted by Massad Boulos. In fact, it is not
about peace, but a seek of grip on Africa’s mineral cradle Washington badly needs.

Alan Collins Mpewo, is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

Why America Will Lose Tariff War Against China

Posted on by Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

It is impossible to make any assessment of economic growth worldwide without coming face to face with the contribution of China, in any country’s economic growth. But America is also the world’s largest developed country. It is impossible to point at any nook or crevice of the world and not find American capital or financing doing something. Because of this, a tariff war between the world’s largest developing country, China, and the world’s largest developed country, the USA, would have effects resonating with every country in the world. They are two elephants. We are grass.

When Deng Xiaoping succeeded Hua Guofeng and opened up China to international trade in 1979, the volume of trade between China and the USA stood at a paltry US$2.5 billion. Recent figures for 2024 show that there has been an increase of that trade volume to US$688.3 billion! This expansion of trade between the two countries can never be said to have benefited only one country. I think Trump is blinded by sheer prejudice in the belief that China is ripping off America in their balance of trade.

America has increasingly grown to be a protectionist, yet it is the birthplace of free-market Mujahideens like Milton Friedman. It has in total imposed over US$500 billion of tariffs against China between 2018 and now. Given China’s high resolve to peacefully settle all kinds of conflicts, it invited the U.S. into several rounds of trade and economic negotiations to stabilize the two countries’ bilateral trade relations over the years, to no material success.

America, in its typical coercive American style, has recently passed the “America First Trade Policy Memorandum” in which they targeted China with a number of tariffs in complete usurpation of the principles of the market economy and multilateralism which henceforth were indistinguishable from America itself – American being the beacon of free-trade values.

The entire global supply chain is disrupted when America imposes such arbitrary trade restrictions on China. So, it is no longer just China’s problem, we all must be concerned. It is even false for Trump to claim China is ripping off the U.S. In fact, ever since the Bretton Woods system was established in 1944, it has been the U.S. ripping off the entire world because the American dollar was made the world’s primary reserve currency, pegged to gold and used as the standard for international trade and foreign exchange – a position that Americana has heedlessly exploited to its selfish benefit. It is this economic history that has given the U.S. significant economic leverage over other countries which have to hold dollars to stabilize their currencies, yet the U.S. can simply print dollars at no cost to settle its foreign debts and pay for material goods in international trade. America’s biggest export today is capital because it can literally print money to cover its budget deficits, effectively exporting inflation while other countries bear the cost of maintaining dollar reserves.

I do not understand why Trump or his economic and trade policy advisers seem to think that for America to be succeeding and something, its rivals must lose. It should be obvious to anyone that cooperation between China and the US does benefit both sides. And the opposite is true.

As already explained above, the volume of trade between the two countries has grown 275 times since 1979, reaching $688.28 billion in 2024.

It is difficult if not impossible to find any ratio of trade relations between the two nations where the U.S. does not benefit more than China. And this is why I argue that America stands to lose the tariff war. Whereas the US is China’s largest goods export destination, it is also the second-largest source of imports. Therefore, if China tits for tat for every increment of tariffs America makes, American citizens will either pay much more for basic goods or even fail to afford them at all. China is also the U.S.’s third-largest export destination. This means American companies will find it crazy expensive to export goods and services to one of their largest markets. Besides, America’s exports to China have been increasing faster than their exports to any other country in the world, because of China’s purchasing power.

According to UN figures, in 2024, America exported US$143.55 billion worth of goods to China, representing a 648.4 percent increase from US$19.18 billion in 2001. Additionally, this exceeded its overall export growth of 183.1 percent during the same period. China is also the largest export market for US soybeans and cotton, the second-largest export market for integrated circuits and coal, and the third-largest export market for medical devices, liquefied petroleum gas, and automobiles.

This aerial view shows the Port of Baltimore on April 10, 2025, in Baltimore, Maryland. US President Donald Trump’s 10 percent tariff for almost all countries except China will likely remain in place going forward, his top economic advisor Kevin Hassett said Thursday. Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

According to the US Department of Commerce (USDOC), the American service industry is also highly dependent on the two-way trade in services with China. Between 2001 and 2023, China-US services trade expanded over seven times from US$8.95 billion to US$66.86 billion. In 2023 alone, the U.S. registered a surplus of US$26.57 billion in service trade with China, highlighting a significant advantage for the U.S.

Into the bargain, in 2022, American-owned enterprises in China earned total revenue worth US$490.52 billion, significantly exceeding the US$78.64 billion in sales revenue generated by Chinese-owned enterprises in the U.S. The gap of US$411.88 billion critically underscores the profound advantage of American enterprises in international trade, even against a strong economy like China. The number of trade areas which can be cited as examples to show how America benefits more than China under free trade are countless. The amounts involved are enormous. Doesn’t Trump know this?

It would therefore be foolhardy for Trump to brazenly sideline China economically through imposing crazy tariffs. Over 10 American insurance companies have established subsidiaries in China. American financial institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, American Express, Bank of America, and MetLife, have all invested substantially in Chinese financial institutions. Trump seems to either lack the knowledge or arbitrarily disregard the fact that the trade balance between China and the US is not a malicious creation of China. Instead, it is an independent result of structural factors in the US economy and the natural comparative advantages and international division of labor between it and China.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Center.

Trump’s Tariffs Against China: A Threat To Countries’ Legitimate  Development Rights

Posted on by Allawi Ssemanda

For almost four months now, the Trump administration has arguably rattled global trade, economists, shocked business executives and set off heated exchanges with not only the world’s second largest economy – China, but also US’s largest trading partners and allies like Canada and Mexico.

While economists and corporate executives expressed concerns that such shift in Washington’s trade policy was a gamble with potential of causing a ricochets in the global economy, Trump appeared unbothered, selling his tariffs policy with celebratory tone calling tariffs “the greatest thing ever invented,” as he branded the day he announced his now paused tariffs a “liberation day.” “This is one of the most important days, in my opinion, in American history,” noted Trump as he announced imposing a now paused 10% universal tariff on all imported foreign goods in addition to “reciprocal tariffs” on several countries he claims have always “cheated” America.

While he later announced that he was pausing his tariffs for 90 days to allow negotiations, he maintained 145% tariffs on Chinese goods prompting Beijing to announced retaliatory tariffs of 125% onto US goods.

Also, Beijing made its position clear, strongly condemning these tariffs arguing they “severely infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of nations, severely violates World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, severely harms the rules-based multilateral trading system, and severely disrupts the stability of the global economic order.”

Further, Beijing noted that the U.S opting to use “tariffs as a tool of extreme pressure for selfish gain is a textbook example of unilateralism, protectionism, and economic coercion.” This, China maintains “violate basic economic laws and market principles, disregard the balance of interests reached through multilateral trade negotiations, and ignore the fact that the US has long reaped substantial benefits from international trade.”

While Trump argues that the US has been “unfairly” treated and “cheated” by other countries, many analysts contend that the tariff man’s main intention is to advance his protectionists agenda which he argues will help revive domestic manufacturing with possibility of re-shoring what he describes as American jobs.

If critically analysed, while Trump claims his tariffs marks  “the beginning of making America rich again,” many economists contend his unorthodox policies will harm global trade supply and also hurt the American economy. Indeed, Larry Summers, treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, branded Trump’s  tariffs “a self-inflicted supply shock.” “This is a self-inflicted wound to the American economy. I’d expect inflation over the next three or four months to be higher as a consequence, because the price level has to go up when you put a levy on goods that people are buying,” stressed Summers. It is not surprising the Wall Street Journal’s editorial described Trump’s tariff policies as the ‘dumbest trade war in history.’

A clear analysis of  Trump’s tariffs makes one thing clear; he wrongfully thinks the US can thrive on her own and that Washington has nothing to gain from global trade. This partly explains why “tariff man’s” administration is insisting on pursuing “American Exceptionalim” and isolation. President Trump ignores the fact that in today’s global village, it is nearly impossible for any single country to embrace isolation policies and succeed without hurting itself.  The Wall Street Journal’s editorial brings this better; “Mr Trump sometimes sounds as if the US shouldn’t import anything at all, that America can be a perfectly closed economy making everything at home. “This is called autarky, and it isn’t the world we live in, or one that we should want to live in, as Mr Trump may soon find out.

The US is one of the main arctetures of the current international economic and trade order and so should embrace the rules entirely other than unilaterally opting to place American interests above the common good of the international community. As China noted in their position regarding Trump’s tariffs, “economic globalisation is an inevitable path for the development of human society. The multilateral trade system, with the WTO at its core and based on rules, has made important contributions to the development of global trade, economic growth, and sustainable development.”

China and some analysts believe Trump’s use of tariffs targeting China is due to Trump’s desire to “counter” China’s economic progress which the Trump administration sees as a threat to the US’s assumed right to dominate the world. Rightly so, China contends by targeting its trade with tariffs, the US is violating WATO rules which Beijing notes undermines the multilateral trading system.

Analysing 1st Trump Administration China-targeted tariffs, a study by the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank found that the US’s use of tariffs targeting Chinese trade violated  WTO rules. It further revealed that while Chinese companies were most affected, even American’s citizens were affected as China responded to the Trump administration’s trade tariffs with reciprocal tariffs. The study “Unfair Trade or Unfair Protection? The Evolution and Abuse of Section 301” contends that the laws Trump cites to impose tariffs on other countries “grants the executive branch far too much discretion in defining an actionable foreign trade practice” which may be exploited for political reasons – it allows American President to safeguard America’s trade interests by remedying any “act, policy, or practice of a foreign country [that] is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.”

In light of this, as China stated in their position on Trump’s tariffs, “development is a universal right of all nations, not the privilege of a few. There are no winners in trade wars or tariff wars. All countries must uphold genuine multilateralism, jointly oppose all forms of unilateralism and protectionism, safeguard the international system…”

The opposite is disastrous because the use of tariffs to counter  China does not only hinder legitimate development rights of the Chinese people but the entire global south population, especially Africa  whose countries’ both social and economic development have been realized as a result of China’s economic development and Beijing’s selfless policy of building a community of shared future.

Those who can should remind president Trump that, the world needs win-win cooperation and justice, not America’s hegemony!

Allawi Ssemanda is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

Trump’s Tariffs: As China Retaliates, The World Has Refused To Bend The Knee

Posted on by Alan Collins Mpewo

Trump’s first weeks in office for his administration’s second term have not been short of interesting news. To his critics he has proved right, and to the U.S allies, he has shocked them. In fact jokes have been filling media platforms, of the tariffs that were slapped on almost the entire world. His administration has recently imposed tariffs on countries’ products entering the U.S market, that it all seems like the U.S has been having it that bad to reckon. To make America great again – either you bend towards our interests or you will be purged. China might be the greatest victim of the levied tariffs. Trump in his first term as U.S president imposed tariffs of over 20% on select Chinese products into the U.S, tariffs that were maintained by the Biden administration. From January to April 2025, the US trade-weighted average tariff rose from 2% to an estimated 24%, the highest level in over a century. Trump escalated an ongoing trade war with China, raising baseline tariffs on Chinese imports to an effective 145% after April 9, 2025.

Explaining that “the US’s imposition of abnormally high tariffs on China seriously violates international trade rules, basic economic laws and common sense,” China reciprocated announcing it was raising tariffs on all United States goods to 125 percent.

The global south countries have been no exception, with a few mentions such as Zambia, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Mauritius, South Africa, Kenya, and many more. The intention according to the White House media outlets have been to level ground where USA was facing unfair trading terms. The state of affairs led shortly to panic especially in the stocks markets and as noted by numerous economists, JP Morgan Chase warned of possible likelihood of steep recession. But it was all resolute of the Trump administration that be damned, dear world, we are taking back what is ‘rightly’ ours. Long term allies affected. Alliances broken. Panic caused. All in a bid to not only cause alarm and show strategic strength, but to push the countries on whom tariffs were imposed into negotiations, bending the knee towards the U.S, and put the rest on notice of what might happen in future should they not adhere to the U.S terms as they come.

Many years and efforts of diplomacy put to a drain. Diplomacy is expensive. World histories are littered with case examples. But one event can change the course. The European Union had learnt so for decades, and now with a new blow, it still learns of the inadequacies presented from its leniency to U.S supremacy. The results? Now the E.U is realigning its interests. Strange times. China’s reaction does not come off as shocking. Neither does the imposition of stiff tariffs on its products. China equally issued fitting tariffs on US products entering the China market and a limit to access of some rare earth materials, with U.S and Ukraine’s rare earth deal gaining disruptions on possibilities of success. The Canadian Premier also responded in equal measure as the U.S did. And by day, the list of those imposing similar or worse tariffs keeps growing.

In an official response, China stated (among others) in a communique, “by taking such action, the United States defies the fundamental laws of economics and market principles, disregards the balanced outcomes achieved through multilateral trade negotiations,… and weaponizes tariffs to exert maximum pressure for selfish interests – a typical act of unilateralism, protectionism and economic bullying. Under the guise of “reciprocity” and “fairness,” the US is playing a zero-sum game to pursue in essence “America First” and “American exceptionalism.” It attempts to exploit tariffs to subvert the existing international economic and trade order, put U.S. interests above the common good of the international community, and advance U.S. hegemonic ambitions at the cost of the legitimate interests of all countries.” Spot on, because as the communique rightly noted, the World Trade Organisation approach to international trading with a rules based trade system was introduced to ensure balanced economic benefits for all world players. Fair trading and not economic bullying.

But the world has refused to bend the knee. For the global south, with incidents like the suspension of many African countries from AGOA, Uganda inclusive, has opened doors to new diplomacy and alliances. It goes without surprise as to why most countries in the global south are turning their choice of partnership to the East. To them, the US is no longer to be regarded as the decision making commander on all world affairs, or the compass that determines how affairs should run in each country. The window keeps getting opened to new allies, differently this time round, with allies that have some fabric of respect to autonomy and independence in determining internal politics and affairs – a lacking factor with U.S alliance. With the growing tensions, the U.S days off reaping off heaven are reducing. This was made strategically with its withdraw from global commitments under the World Health Organization, International Criminal Court, and other United Nations parastatals.

The defiance has grown, dissent increased, and realities are clearer. To re-echo Kissinger’s quote, “To be an enemy of the U.S is dangerous. But to be a friend of the U.S is fatal.” A country that has run its foreign relations in such ways is not one to keep close. The allies have until this year opened their eyes wider. For Africa, it has been a point of sheer exploitation. From rumored regime change covert missions, to looting of minerals, and a growing lack of boundaries on the extent of meddling by Western powers, the ascension of the East – specifically China – as a parallel competing economy has been a blessing to the global south with alternative implementation of foreign policy and respect of autonomy. A growing admiration of opposition from an ally showcasing the possibilities that lie in concerted neglect of unfair global dominance. What is certain is that the global south will survive and whereas the economic disruptions will cause discomfort, more power lies ahead in turning away from full alliance with the U.S. All thankfully to Trump’s administration.

Alan Collins Mpewo, Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

US Trade Tariffs on China and Vietnam Overestimate American Bargaining Power

Posted on by Ernest Talwana

As of Wednesday 2nd April, 2025, the American President, Donald.J. Trump announced tariffs globally against countries he accuses of benefitting off what he calls American clemency and the ineptitude of the previous administration. In his attempt to usher in a “Golden Age for America” he has announced a broad range of tariffs with particular force being applied to China and Vietnam who have been slapped with 34% and 46% respectively in “discounted reciprocal tariffs. Of worthy note is Cambodia who has equally been hit with a 49% tariff. It should be noted that these tariffs aren’t actually based on actual existent tariffs by said nations but trade deficits divided by actual imports as seen in World Trade Organisation data.

These tariffs are clearly meant to pull American manufacturers utilising low tax and low labour cost jurisdictions to maximise output away from South East Asia to invest in domestic manufacturing and create local jobs as promised by Trump on the campaign trail.

However, none of these promises consider the reality that American manufacturing is often costly as compared to international manufacturing due to higher labour costs in the USA and taxation that pushes American companies to manufacture in South East Asia.

Imagine an American company, let’s call it “TreadsCo,” that makes sneakers. In the U.S., they’d have to pay workers at least $15 an hour (or more, depending on the state) to stitch the shoes, assemble the soles, and package them. That’s because of minimum wage laws and higher living costs. Plus, they’d deal with expensive rent for a factory, strict environmental rules that add costs (like waste disposal fees), and taxes that take a bigger bite out of profits.

Now, picture TreadsCo setting up in Vietnam. There, they might pay workers $5 to $8 an hour because wages are much lower, tied to the local cost of living. The factory rent is cheaper—maybe a tenth of what it’d cost in a U.S. city—and Vietnam’s government offers tax breaks to attract foreign companies. On top of that, regulations on things like emissions or labor conditions are looser, so TreadsCo spends less on compliance. Even after shipping the sneakers back to the U.S., the total cost per pair could drop from, say, $45 to make in the U.S. to $17 in Vietnam. That’s a big savings, especially when they’re churning out millions of pairs to sell at stores like Walmart or Costco.

So, for TreadsCo, Vietnam’s lower labor costs, cheaper facilities, and friendlier business rules make it a no-brainer to manufacture there instead of at home.

Companies cannot abruptly disrupt supply and production chains from which they greatly benefit in terms of reduced cost and therefore, the end consumer carries the increased cost that the manufacturer incurs in tariff barriers.

Trump sees himself embodying the late 19th Century President, McKinley who famously placed wide ranging tariffs on international trade which favoured a nascent industrialising American economy but ignores modern day contexts.

Even McKinley, a pioneer of American protectionism, realized later in his Presidency that high tariffs weren’t perfect. In 1901, he started pushing for trade deals to lower some tariffs and boost exports. He got assassinated before he could do much, but it shows he saw limits. Trump, though, seems all-in on tariffs without that flexibility(premised on a faux sense of American global domination) which could box him in if things go south.

Trump’s McKinley-style protectionism might sound like a bold “America First” move, but it’s a gamble. It will jack up prices, shock and agitate trade partners, and not deliver the job boom he promises—all while ignoring how much the world has changed since 1890. It’s like trying to use a horse and cart fix in a rocket-ship age (which equally relies on global supply chains to acquire rare earth metals like neodymium used to make particular magnets from states like China).

Nations like China and Vietnam can very much rely on their own trade ecosystems to maintain robust trade. The USA cannot simply push them into a position that favours the USA. According to Nikkei Asia and Statista.com, China’s trade with Southeast Asia (ASEAN) surpasses its trade with the US. In 2022, China-ASEAN goods trade reached $722 billion, accounting for nearly one-fifth of ASEAN’s global trade. By 2023, Chinese exports to ASEAN were valued at $523.7 billion.

This dynamic shows a healthy interdependence amongst South East Asian economies outside US Trade.

Trump’s tariffs only hurt American consumers in the long-term who rely on goods produced by American companies that outsource some manufacturing components from China, Vietnam and Cambodia. This is especially in the textile and automotive industry.

If critically analysed, Trump’s use of tariffs as a weapon is not a smart move in a trade sense and will disrupt global chain supply on top of affecting the U.S itself with a risk of plunging it to a resccession. The Wall Street Journal editorial branded the move as “the Dumbest Trade War in History.” Thus, it can be argued that Trump overates the US’ position in the grand calculus of global trade with the only reality being a potentially high cost of living forthcoming for the ordinary American. To sum it up, perhaps quoting former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau response to Trump’s use of tariffs against countries can explain this; “it’s not in my habit to agree with the Wall Street Journal, but Donald, they point out that  even though you’re a very smart guy, this is a very dumb thing to do.”

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

 

China Town and the Ugandan Economy: A Debate on Growth and Consumer Choices

Posted on by Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

One of the most difficult yet overly simplified ideas in economics is the economic growth of nations. Economists and pundits seem to always analyse by analogy, connecting dots backwards to define unique or even random experiences of developed nations and claiming that they developed because of certain economic policies they pursued.  The truth is that we know very little to certainly tell what or how countries achieve economic growth. Often, developed countries experience booms and bursts, or even the periods under which their economies experienced fast growth are always disparately distributed, with different characteristics and sometimes similar characteristics that never guarantee growth.

China is a good example to illustrate this point. It is a country famous for pursuing socialism, yet today, there is argaubly growing worry that China, a socialist country, is fundamentally restructuring the capitalist world in ways never before imagined. How is a communist country now being accused of hyper-capitalism? Isn’t this a big irony?

Back to China Town in Uganda; a hypermarket that opened in September and saw an overflow of customers who flocked to it in droves, driving the police to close it down for some time because of the security threat from the mob of buyers that had crowded the parking space at its Lugogo location.

Some critics have expressed fear and warned that China Town spells doom to local entrepreneurs in downtown Kampala who are losing business opportunities because all customers are now flocking to the China store to buy goods at astronomically low prices.

Some have observed it as the newest trend highlighting an already existing, broader issue of global capitalism, where multinational corporations undermine local economies.

I would not interpret or understand China Town as comparable to Western multinational capital at the helm of global capitalism because I see human agency both from Africans/Ugandans and Chinese traders to enter a mutually beneficial trade relationship. This is different from the state-centric phenomenon that exploitative multinational corporations often come with. I think this is also related to the common misinterpretation of all ‘‘Chinese’’ activities under the umbrella of ‘‘China.’’ For instance, industrial parks in Uganda established by the government are usually mistaken for Chinese enterprises because they are constructed with the support of the Chinese. But there is a difference between “made in China” and “made by Chinese.” The point is to have domestic industries, and what makes them domestic is that they serve the interests of the nationals, are run by nationals, and the value of the products is domestically harvested. Even if there are Chinese advisers in the industrial parks, it would not make them Chinese industries.

The question to answer about the China Town phenomenon is: Whom does the China Town business serve?

Droves of customers flock to the supermarket because they are voting with their feet and wallets and are saying, “This serves our interest!”

True, many traders in Kikuubo and Kamapala road may be losing business to China Town, but they are also selling foreign goods, imported at the cost of depleting our country’s foreign exchange reserves. The only debate they can have is as regards customer satisfaction, and it seems customers are not satisfied with paying expensively for “fake” products from Ugandan traders, yet they can buy similar products at half the price in China Town.

I would have argued differently if the fake products sold by Ugandan traders were Ugandan goods because then I would have the understanding that we need to support Indigenous innovation and support domestic manufacturing if it is to improve over the years and give us better products while also growing the size of our economy through manufacturing. But this is not the case.

Local traders in Kikuubo, as President Museveni has emphasized to them often, are simply Ugandans who promote foreigners to leach on Uganda because they are very content with investing their money in importing instead of supporting local manufacturing.

The alternative viewpoint I have on China Town is that it might actually be the engine that supports the growth of the Ugandan Economy in some ways.

How?

By providing Ugandans with affordable high-end goods such as electronics, stationery, and other items needed to perform work more effectively, China Town is likely to greatly improve the productivity of workers by availing them tools to efficiently work and increase output.

This cannot be said of expensive shops in Kampala which many Ugandans cannot afford to buy from to improve their work efficiency and general living conditions, yet they are also importers of foreign goods.

In conclusion, I am not claiming certainty of knowledge as far as predicting what the transformative factors for Uganda’s economy will be. But in analysis, local traders have no locus standi to accuse China Town of affecting the economy. The economy is built by Ugandans who go about their work, and they need tools to work. What is wrong with them buying those tools quite cheaply from a China Town supermarket?

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Center.

Celebrating Fruits of China’s South-South Cooperation Projects in Uganda

Posted on by Joshua Kingdom

In June this year, a three year South-South Cooperation (SSC) agriculture project between the governments of Uganda and China as well as the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) will come to a close. As we look to a renewal that is almost certain, we can take a moment to reflect on the remarkable milestones arrived at during the years in which the partnership has run.

Having commenced by the agreement titled “Technical Assistance Under the South-South Cooperation with the People’s Republic of China in Support of the Development Strategy and Investment Plan 2010/11-2015/16 in the Republic of Uganda” back in 2012, and further extended one more time before its current dispensation, the SSC’s endurance owes to its results which cannot be overstated.

During the first and second phases therefore, there was an introduction of crop varieties that best responded to the needs of local farmers, the most impressive of which is perhaps proso millet. Its attributes made it more suitable for planting than the local finger millet– it grows for a shorter time (75 days rather than 90), requires less grains in planting (5kg per acre instead of 25), bares more yield (up to three times), and is drought resistant. Also witnessed, was astounding realizations in cases that involved diary farming where cows are reported to provide at least seven liters each per day up from just two.

The present SSC is not only interesting because it builds on these numbers however, but also because it makes part of a broader framework in which China has in recent years led an effort of helping contribute to the faster realization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Dubbed the Global Development Initiative (GDI), this program singles out eight SDGs that Beijing feels require specific attention for the sake of the developing economies post Covid-19. This is further true now that 2030 is not far off.

In his 2022 address to the ministerial meeting of the Group of Friends i.e. the umbrella of nations and organizations that support the GDI cause, Chinese Foreign Minister (FM) Wang Yi, among other things outlined improvement in agricultural practices as key in realizing SDG 1 (ending poverty). To this end, he highlighted that, his country would world over restart the SSC which had up to that point concluded.

The FM further spelled out bold measures to accompany this arrangement that Uganda has since benefited from e.g. an agreement for technical support entered by China’s Academy of Agricultural Sciences and its International Research Center of Big Data for Sustainable Development with FAO along with donation of data imperative for policy making to the United Nations like on arable land and forest coverage provided by the SDGSAT-1 satellite.

Interwoven around four objectives (development of aquaculture value chain, supporting livestock improvement, establishment of a technological transfer base, and development of high yield rice and foxtail rice) thus, it comes as no surprise that the period between 2022 and 2025 has been even more successful.

The SSC project during this time in the country has ensured that farmers in the areas of focus have very highly educated experts at their disposal for consultation something that greatly turned around their fortunes. In terms of the broader picture, there have been several collaborations between in-line institutions and their colleagues in China. Most notably, joint research by Shanghai Agro Biological Gene Center and the National Agricultural Research Organization resulted into the release of WDR-73, a genetically modified variety of rice that is incredible in its yield and doubles as drought resistant.

Food and Agriculture Organisation Uganda country Representative  Antonio Querido (maroon shirt) with Chinese ambassador to Uganda Zhang Lizhong (3rd right) the fingerling stocking activity at Aquaculture Research and Development Centre in Kajjansi on June 12, 2023 (Photo: Daily Monitor/ABUBAKER LUBOWA )

There has also been several sponsored visits of Ugandan officials to different regions of China for purposes of benchmarking best practices as well as in brokerage of associated policies. While attending the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation last year thus, the Minister of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Fisheries Hon. Frank Tumwebaze entered an agreement with the General Administration of Customs of the Republic of China that allowed Uganda to export aquatic life and Chilies to the over 1.4 billion people market of China.

According to the minister, this was also the first time that Uganda would be exporting the second product to any part of the world there demonstrating China’s commitment to walk the talk. Therefore, as we approach the end of this partnership, considering the multitudes of success it came with, celebrations are in order. Viva  China-Uganda Cooperation.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.