Tag: Trump

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.

 

 

Trump’s Commercial Diplomacy is Setting the Stage for a Multipolar World

Posted on By Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

After the fall of the Berlin wall in November 1989, Washington along with its Western allies was clueless of what would happen next. They had developed their whole systems to rival the Soviet Union, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was no longer worried about the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (KGB), almost overnight the Gosbank State Bank of the USSR and Comecon were gone and the IMF had no opponent, the just ended U.S Agency for International Development (USAID) had a free reign because the Vneshconombank and Soviet Committee for Solidarity with Asia and Africa were no longer in place to further soviet foreign aid programs. For the last three decades, America/West has had no motivation to direct its global influence.

NATO without the opposition of the Warsaw Pact went to a senseless expansion that led to a hot war with Russia in 2014 with Ukraine being the battleground; the security organization accompanied Washington to Iraq and Afghanistan in military campaigns that cost about $ 8 trillion including long term veteran care, interest on the loans and the reconstruction pledges, funding that could have built 6 China’s Belt and Road Initiative. As the United States is leaving Afghanistan and Iraq one thing is clear: all those dollars bills were for nothing because they lost both the wars from a tactical and strategic point because all they did was to lead to deaths of millions of people.

How the west has behaved in the last three decades has only hastened its decline, and diminished Washington’s global influence as Nnando Kizito Sseruwagi a senior research fellow at Development Watch Centre put it in his “A better deal: Why Africa is turning to China for development” pointing out how empires that have tried to dominate the world have all ended up falling. The reality is that as Americas’ decline happens there is a gap being created, a gap to reshape the world order.

The undertakings of Trump 2.o are all being a catalyst to the decline of the west, he has officially decided to put an end to USAID after its 6 decades throwing away what looks like Washington’s biggest soft power tool. It’s becoming more and more evident that the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) will not survive as commercial diplomacy is being President Trump’s path of international relations. Washington through its America first policy is rolling out Tariffs even towards its long standing allies like Canada, a member of NATO and G7 an indicator that AGOA is in its last days.

President Trump has always been unconventional and in his first term in office he went ahead to meet the North Korea leader for talks that never materialized into anything, he also negotiated the withdrawal of the American and NATO troops from Afghanistan and handed the country back to the Taliban an event that showcased America’s weakest point. Lately Israeli news outlets broke the news that Trump was in direct talks with Hamas, an organization that Washington officially considers as terrorists. In his many unconventional approaches to diplomacy he has sent a letter to Iran’s supreme leader regarding a deal on Iran’s nuclear program after he withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that had seen Iran only use its nuclear program for peaceful purposes at the same time opening up the country to the world. Everyone knows the Iranians can never negotiate from a position of disrespect as though they are selling their country in a real estate deal. During his campaign to return to the white house Mr. Trump on the Joe Logan Podcast said America got nothing from protecting Taiwan, he linked the whole situation on how the Mafia offer’s its security, his commercial diplomacy then took the Mafia diplomacy outlook. It’s the approach he has taken to the Ukraine situation, after the shouting match in the oval office with the Ukraine president, Washington froze it’s military support to Kiev and further went ahead to stop any intelligence sharing with Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government until a deal promising $ 500 billion rear earth minerals to USA is signed. He is basically setting NATO to Auto pilot and the European Union knows it has to step up on its security. On security the African version of NATO AFRICOM survived being axed during Trump 1.0 but with developments coming from White house the writing is on the wall according to a scenario plan report by a French think tank Institut Monteigne.

In October of 2020 China’s President introduced the saying “the East is rising and the West is declining” words that resonated with the global south because of what is unfolding, currently BRICS is giving the G7 a run for its money, when it comes to demographics that define markets and labor force and on a bad day fighting force in terms of war. The manufacturing capital of the world is in the east, South East Asia are taking up their place on the global stage and they are influencing organizations like the G20. Beijing has put in place its Global Security Initiative (GSI), Alan Collins Mpewo a senior research fellow at Development Watch Centre outlines how the GSI can fill the security void in places like Africa in his piece titled “D.R Congo Problems: Time to try China’s Global Security Initiative?” a piece that can mirror the situation in both the Sudans, for Beijing it has also been its official approach to the war in Europe and it’s the framework that was used to restore diplomatic channels between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

China is better placed to fill up the gap left by the west but being on top of the world doesn’t mean it will necessarily run and police the world since it has invested in the global south through FOCAC and Belt and Road Initiative to have equally developed partners not allies to reshape the future of the planet, through multilateralism in a multipolar setting that respects all cultures and civilizations.

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

 

China On Proposed Gaza Takeover By US: War Should Not Have The Last Word

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

The Gaza question seemed at first to be an easier one to answer on the side of Israel, but that could not have been the case. It seemed justified at the time, but as of today, events have continuously taken different turns and twists. Much as solutions from declaring the Gaza strip a no man’s land, to executing a two state treaty, Israel maintains that Gaza should not belong to Palestine, and that Palestine is not recognized as a country. And now, the USA has joined the choir of Israel’s song. Same song, “Gaza is Israel’s territory.” As of July, 2024, Palestine has been recognized as an independent state by over 75% of the world countries. Such is the status of Palestine in over 146 countries globally. The USA that has recently joined the band has been a stumbling bloc in the exercise of its veto powers as a permanent UN Security Council. But that has not gone unnoticed since there have been instances when other UN member states have questioned the high handed approach that is sometimes used by the USA in doing so.

China has maintained that war should not have the last word. In this, it has consistently welcomed solutions that do not entail exchange of arms because of the adverse effects already observed. Besides the growing concerns that China wants to outdo USA’s global dominance, it has come off as a shock to many persons that it was welcoming to the USA cease fire agreement proposal between Israel and Hamas. As of the end of January, 2025, the USA was on the forefront of this conversation and the Trump administration spotlighted to have more intentions than expected however. This unfolded on 05th February, 2025 when Trump after meeting the Israel Premier unveiled the plan for Gaza. In his words, “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too.” This development came up as shocking to the world because later statements showed that the USA would be using real estate companies to complete the works, but the question remained on where the Gaza residents would end up.

A quick look of what the response was, is rather shocking. To evict them and have them assigned to neighbouring countries. In a migratory language, that would be termed as forced displacement. This does not rule out the fact that it is foreseeable that more USA troops would be introduced to the area. This would be foretelling after the Afghanistan campaign that did not go well. War would be inevitable. Hamas are not going without a fight. This is expected. China is opposed to this. As proposed, China will have to be part of the engagements and the rest of the world nations as proposed by China.

China’s focus on the Gaza situation is to rule out an isolationist solution where other important stakeholders are ruled out. One to do with the USA playing as the arbiter and yet its interests have been publicly come to be known. It has even taken strange responses like the USA sanctioning officials from the ICC for issuing arrest warrants on Benjamin Netanyahu. But as China notes, even then, dozens of countries stood firm on the side of ICC despite the threats. China has with unison of many other countries worldwide maintained that Gaza is integral to Palestine and should be left independent to decide its future.

The Arab League met on 21st February, 2025 to have a discussion on the future of Gaza, and as China, rejected the displacement plan that is being proposed by USA. They too maintain that Palestine deserves autonomy and has seen much bloodshed and destruction already. Interesting to note is that there has been a back and forth by other global residents on who had an opportunity to weigh in on the risks and mitigations of both. Clearly, the odds have not been on the US side of proposal. Compared  with the Egypt drafted proposal to rebuild Gaza that was endorsed by the Arab leaders and the US proposal, the European Union major powers agreed towards the Arab leaders’ proposal. The simple reason that countries like Britain, Germany, France, and Italy have given is that the Arab proposal of rebuilding Gaza, compared to US’s, is that it does not seek to illegally evict and displace the residents of Gaza. It has much of Gaza residents’ interests at the centre. As the body to their agreement to the Arab proposal, they used the words, “it is realistic.” Such unfortunate times, require realistic responses.

To them, Trump’s proposal is directly undermining over 7 decades of works of the Arab League in supporting the Palestinian independence efforts and rather, would glorify the USA as yet again, the saviour in the story. That is typical power greed and overlap. The Gaza question today remains unresolved because the USA had maintained its subjectivity towards Israel. It is understandable to what it would lose or gain in terms of trade and security cooperation but that would not overlook the fact that with its support, the war has been extended overtime. And now, that plan would be a masterstroke of the USA re-entry into the middle-east. That is the ultimate plan.

It would be a strategic move to keep active monitoring of the Arab trade window in disguise of peacekeeping. Similar USA involvement in the past did not ever end well. And so won’t this. Such is the ground of China that there should be a limit to diplomatic rifts. A ceasefire is a warrant to that, and China is not backing down. A Gaza takeover should not be an option, except a takeover by the Palestinian people whose rightful home is Gaza.

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

Policy Volte-Face In Washington as The U.S Validates China’s Position on the Ukraine Conflict

Posted on By Musiime George

The principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, common development and political settlement of conflicts have always been a hallmark feature of Chinese diplomacy. For China, this position meant more than just rhetoric; extending  into policy implementation with the principles built into all of China’s partnerships. China resolutely chose to uphold these principles when it declared the “friendship with no limits” with Russia in 2022 which some western commentators argue is behind China’s stance on the conflict in Ukraine. China and Russia however, maintain that this friendship was not intended as  a direct challenge to the current global order but those that governed for always using it for their own geopolitical gains. Nevertheless, some commentators always  paint this friendship as an Anti-West alliance. Coming out of the Biden Administration which only  purposed to replenished Ukraine’s capacity to fight on not withstanding of the gravity of the crisis, China advocated for a negotiated end to the conflict from the start. This is why a policy volte-face on Ukraine in the US  is such a significant development in the global effort to restore peace in Eastern Europe.

The NATO alliance; a rigid anti-Russia stance and the brightest of all red lines. Russia has maintained, its interests in this conflict were purely self-defense unlike the West describing it as aggression or invasion. Albeit the different points of view, this essay is not dedicated to delving in the technicalities of this nomenclature. However, it is worth mentioning here that the push of NATO towards Russia’s doorstep has been highlighted as a strategic threat both from within Russian and the west alike. The expansion has been criticized in the West,  among others by,  Biden CIA director Bill Burns who referred to it as “…needlessly provocative at worst during the Clinton administration in 1998. He also went ahead to describe NATO Expansion in a 2005 letter to Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice as “the brightest of red lines.” Moreover, French president Francois Mitterrand, had earlier in the 1990s proposed dismantling the alliance after it had served its purpose following the end of the cold war. While different scholars have faulted this sustained expansion of the Alliance as a key factor in this conflict, the Validation of China’s position on the conflict could imply fresh hope for the region.

During a period when the world is dealing with a diversity of security concern, China is proposing The Global initiative is built on the principal pillar of security of all nations regardless. Therefore, with Trump’s reversal of Biden era policy on Ukraine, the world can expect to see progress in efforts to find a solution to this conflict. Indeed, were are at that point where a world weary of the prolonged conflict can expect to see some progress in as far as bringing the conflict and its associated negative impact on the world to an end. Additionally, president Trump has been moving first in this direction having already had a high level meeting involving secretary of state Rubio and Russian PM Sergei Lavrov in Riyadh, coinciding with restoration of diplomatic relations between the two nations. On the other hand,  parallel meetings with the Ukrainian have happened, putting together the conditions for a peace deal. The holding of parallel meetings also signifies a commitment to reaching a deal as the absence of both Ukraine and the EU in Riyadh might be interpreted as a move seeking to avoid stalemates characteristic of having NATO members-some of whom might still harbor the rigid anti Russia sentiments. Critics of this approach, have thus been,  those outspoken about the wanting to see the conflict going until Ukraine attains Victory, something Trump clearly does not see as a viable outcome, at least not in the short or medium term.

More so, the presidents view is not one shared by everyone of uncle Sam’s partners as expressed by frustration of some white house staff. Amid these frustration, Ukraine and some EU presidents have been faulted for attempts to denigrate President Trump’s peace efforts. However, his resolve to find a solution to this conflict at any cost has been demonstrated by his implied proposal that saving the lives of innocent civilians might even be so important to justify Ukraine ceding some territory. Additionally, Trumps earlier expressed position on the implications of  the “NATO burden” on the United States economy could be another factor informing his policy reversal. This with the fact that The US has been Ukraine’s biggest backer in the war also signal how room little President Zelensky might have to wiggle out of the deal especially that the US is considering scaling back its European deployment which would directly affect NATO deployment as well.

Obviously, one cannot deny the fact that ‘war fatigue’ started setting in as early as the second half of 2024 with Poland and Czechia among the first professed EU supporters of Ukraine to want out. Despite promises to support the war effort for as long as it took, the withdrawal of significant US backing would most like dent and eventually dwindle European interest in the war even further- making continued fighting unsustainable. Moreover, a poll by the Council on Foreign Relations in Feb 2024, indicated most Europeans anticipating the conflict ending in a compromise. In addition, the same poll also put at 10% the chance that Ukraine might emerge triumphant. Consequently, this dynamic will have a direct bearing on the outcome of the new US led peace efforts. Conversely, for those that might be against the concessions by the US regarding its military presence in Europe, NATO and consequently the war in Ukraine, this might be a start of a possible reorientation of Europe’s security strategies. However, this development is also likely to relax tensions on the continent and Russia’s urgency to develop security capabilities against the threat from NATO.

When president Xi Jinping first proposed the Global Security Initiative in April 2022, he envisioned global security in the sense of a balanced security landscape, one where the security of one does not threaten that of another. This is what makes US validation of China’s initial position on the Ukraine conflict, a huge prospect for peace in the region. Therefore, a peace deal in Ukraine, should it go through would be a right step in the direction a stable Europe, and here is why. In what seemed like giving a nod to the propositions of President Mitterrand and Bill Burns from decades ago, Trumps defense secretary Pete Hegseth told NATO allies that it was unrealistic for Ukraine to join the alliance. Albeit not being a direct support for the GIS, this position gives props to the cardinal principle of the GIS that advises against promoting one’s security by threatening another. Hence halting NATO expansion keeps the threat to Russia at a safe distance and, just this is a positive move towards not just US-Russia relations but also global peace.

Georgemusiime@dwcug.org

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

Trump’s Trade War Against China: It Has Nothing In It for Americans– Trump Does Not Care

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

On Tuesday last week, a Trump 10% tariff increase on goods imported from China came in effect triggering an almost immediate response by the Chinese government that imposed several duties on United States produced commodities thereby reviving the US-China trade war.

President Trump’s insistence on doing things this way is puzzling because all signs show that the policy will not only not benefit his country but hurt it. In fact, it has started already. Following the announcements for example, stocks for tech giants Apple, Tesla, and Nvidia tanked. The projections for what is to come do not look good either; the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that low-income earning Americans (a constituency that overwhelmingly voted Republican last year) will see their household income reduce by 3.5% something that Goldman Sachs attributes to the expected increase in the price of consumer goods. Mark you, US-based producers are likely to take advantage of the overall market situation by equally hiking their products.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks at a rally to protest the closing of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the work-from-home order issued by CFPB Director Russell Vought outside its headquarters on February 10, 2025.  Photo Credit: Getty Images

We do not have to wait on the future though as this is not the first time that a Trump-led administration takes issue with Chinese products. If at all, these levies are one of his signature marks from the first that he appeared on the political scene. And sure enough, the outcome of his 2018 onslaught is no better than what I laid out above. The financial burden born thereof was met on consumers according to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, farmers that formerly benefited from the then $24billion trade with China went bankrupt, and at least 300, 000 jobs were lost. Overall, the economy saw a 0.3% GDP lag. As for the trade deficit with China, it stalled at $345 billion which is more or less what it was when the tariffs were first promised with the otherwise would have been difference going to other countries e.g. Japan, Britain, and South Korea rather than benefiting manufacturers in the USA.

Moreover, things can only get worse because whereas China has exhibited nothing but good faith up to now (including pointing out that trade wars have no winners), it is far better placed to take on the new United States administration more than ever if push comes to shove. For one thing, Beijing is no longer as reliant on Washington as it was back in 2016. Thanks to a host of agreements that it entered with countries across continents in the intervening years, China has become a main trading partner of at least 120 countries. No wonder, the Communist Party of China (CPC) was quick to retaliate this time, sending a message that nothing will come easy.

Examining the nature of the countermeasures that President Xi’s government adopted is worth the time too. In restricting the exportation of elements that modern technologies heavily rely on for instance, China made it more difficult for American based innovators to compete effectively moving forward. Consider Tungsten which is such a rare mineral and yet key to aerospace ventures, molybdenum that is embedded in jet engines, ruthenium which is essential in the making of chips resistors etc. Australian National University has confirmed this much.

It does not help things that the US President has taken to the offensive in regards to relations with countries that have been traditionally understood as his country’s allies risking self-destruction. We are already seeing this with Canada on whose goods he almost imposed a 25% tariff– the imposition could very well accrue should the ongoing negotiations fall apart. Donald Trump has confirmed that he is considering adopting similar stances towards the European Union as well. In contrast, China has previously demonstrated its willingness to stand in the place of Global leader if a vacuum surfaces. Once Washington halted World Health Organization funding in 2020 thus, the CPC stepped forward and took on more responsibility as the other big boy in the room.

Why then (one would rightly ask) is President Trump so adamant? Well, it goes back to the fact that all he cares about is plundering to his base. Having successfully swayed them into believing a gloom and doom narrative, he must now take on the protector mantle. It comes from an old playbook in which a politician projects genuine grievances of his people onto an “other”. In China’s case, it started as early as the days of initial candidate Trump. Ever since, without facts, he has continued to associate Beijing with distorted depictions including saying that the nation was guilty of “raping” America and of “the greatest theft in the history of the world”.

What is more about this alternative reality, is that facts do not matter. Instead, the end justifies the means and Trump has taken it to heart.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre 

Trump’s Trade Tariffs: Evidence of American Aggression and Unreliability

Posted on By Allawi Ssemanda

In what many described as not surprising but still shocking, on Monday 10th February, the President of the United States of America (U.S), Donald J. Trump announced that Washington was slapping 25% tariffs on all aluminium and steel imports accessing the U.S market.

Speaking from White House where he made the announcement, Trump reasoned these tariffs are meant to reshape international trade. Without facts, America’s whining “tariff man” claimed global trade is unfair to the U.S and American workers. He proclaimed that his unorthodox use of tariffs was “the greatest thing ever invented” as he boasted calling it “the beginning of making America rich again.”

Despite stressing that these tariffs will apply to “all countries with no exemptions, no exceptions,” scholars and analysts contend that Trump’s 25% tariffs will largely affect Washington’s immediate neighbours like Mexico and Canada. The American Iron and Steel Institute lists Canada, Brazil, Mexico and South Korea as America’s major sources of steel and aluminium products.

Canada and Mexico, both America’s closest neighbours and trading allies are already under Trump’s pressure with the leaders of the two countries having agreed with Trump to pause his 25% tariffs levy on Canada and Mexico for 30 days after last minutes negotiations with “tariff man.”

For China, her products entering into the U.S are already facing a 10% levy announced by Trump on February 10th. Beijing has since then reciprocated with a similar percentage levy onto U.S exports into China. Trump is already threatening with a round of reciprocal tariffs. Such reciprocal tariffs would follow 25% levys Trump announced on aluminum and steel products and his additional 10% levy on Chinese goods. Despite criticism by several analysts, Trump insists “the long-term it’s going to make our country a fortune.”

While Trump is describing his use of tariffs against other countries as “the greatest thing ever invented,” and calling it “the beginning of making America rich again,” if critically analysed, his tariffs are not only likely to create negative impacts to targeted countries but will equally hurt the American Economy.

This week’s Statisticts from The U.S Bureau of Labor Statisticts shows that wholesale prices in the U.S have already jumped by 3.5% while consumer prices rose by 3%! Projections for U.S economy bears no good news. Ernst and Young’s chief economist, Greg Daco contends that in 2025 alone, America’s Growth Domestic Product (GDP) is likely to contract by 1.5% and 2.1% in 2026 with inflation rising by about 0.7%.  A deep analysis of this gambling method means that in a typical Donald Trump style – projecting toughness and being wise, “tariff-man’s” use of  tariffs as many analysts argue is an own goal and recipe for slowing America’s economy and will increase inflation which will hurt the very people Trump claims wants to save by forcing companies to work in the U.S and create jobs as a way of dodging his tariffs.

While Trump claims tariffs are meant to safeguard the U.S from the so-called  drugs, illegal immigrants as he noted for the case of Mexico and Canada, and ending what he called unfair trade with China, analysing Trump’s speeches and remarks on these tariffs makes one thing clear. President Trump is an Isolationist who thinks the U.S can be a perfect closed economy. Of course, this is far from reality.  For example, while announcing 25% now paused tariffs on Canada and Mexico, Trump was categorical telling Americans “we don’t need the products they have. We have all the oil you need. We have all the trees you need, meaning the lumber.”

It is not surprising that the Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) 31st January 2025 editorial entitled “The Dumbest Trade War in History” argued that Trump’s tariffs are “for no good reason” and that all reasons advanced by Trump “make no sense.”

From multinationalism perspective, weaponizing trade at a time when the world is faced with economic recovery challenges partly caused by the Covid19 pandemic, and aware that free trade and uninterrupted global chain supply is key for the world to realise United Nations’ agenda 2030, one can conclude that under President Trump, the U.S is now openly selfish and cannot be relied on as a responsible member of global community.

A sign that reads ‘Buy Canadian Instead’ is displayed on top of bottles at a B.C. Liquor Store, in Vancouver, on Feb. 2.Chris Helgren/Reuters

Whereas Trump maybe boasting with his dumbest trade war hopping to reshape global trade on his terms, the scars will not be felt by targeted countries alone but also his voters who as of now Trump seems not to care much about. They already voted for him and he will not be seeking another term. Again, with his 23rd Jan. 2016 “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?”, Trump knows his suppoters are fanatics who can simply sell lies and blame another country say China and accuse it for their suffering should his trade war effects be devastating to American final consumers as many analysts predict!

While for geopolitical reasons some war hawkers in Washington may argue that Trump’s tariffs will slow China’s economic growth, at the end, the U.S will lose more than China.  It is important to note while his rhetoric is more against China, Trump is also targeting America’s closest neigbours and trading partners like Canada and Mexico. The message from this is clear. As Bernard Lewis taught us, “it’s risky to be America’s enemy, but it can be fatal to be its friend.” With this, geopolitically, while the U.S is always driven by Washington’s libido dominad – a latin phrase for the desire to dominate others, with Trump’s tariffs targeting “all countries with no exemptions, no exceptions,” the beginning of the end of America’s hegemony is closer than ever. It is now clear than ever before that what matters to Washington is not how close you’re to them. It is not their so-called “our shared values, good governance or human rights or democracy” as they normally claim. It is simply America’s interests that takes  precedence. This idea can best be understood from the words of U.S’ founding father, George Washington who in his 1976 farewell speech observed that; “No nation is to be trusted farther than it is bound by interest; and no prudent statesman or politician will venture to depart from it…unless both [nations’] interests happen to be assimilated.” 

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

 

 

 

Trump’s Global Aid Pause: A path to a New World Order

Posted on By Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

The world especially the global South anticipated Trump presidency and after his inauguration the world was excited by his many executive orders (EO). The President in Botswana summarized the mood, he said at a press conference that the world was more peaceful during Trump’s first term. In his own way as President elect he influenced Anthony Blinken’s State department to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza.

As time has passed the reality of Trump 2.o has set in, the world has a glimpse of what his world is going to look like, his Secretary of defense broadened the picture of how Washington is to operate. During the Congressional hearing to approve Pete Hegseth nomination, it turned out he can’t name a single country in South East Asia, something that is telling about Great Power Competition between Beijing and Washington.

For global South, Trump presidency is was denoted with his stroke of a pen on January 20th 2025, that issued an EO pausing foreign development assistance for 90 days to foreign countries, NGOs, international organizations and contractors. By 5th February almost all employees that run the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) were prepared to be laid off.

At the height of Cold war in 1961, US President J.FKennedy created USAID to be the USA’s vehicle for all nonmilitary foreign aid with the aim of containing communism, it was also the US’s moral responsibility and economic obligation as a rich country to assist others especially during the post world war. For six decades the USAID has propel America’s soft power across the world especially in places like Africa.

Trump 2.o largely happed because during the campaigns the Republicans promised to cut all wasteful spending and that is being led by Elon Musk in the new government agency called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that advised the slashing of USAID and it’s operations move under the State Department and in the process taking away US Soft power.

The term soft power was introduced by Joseph Nye in 1990 in his book “Bound to lead, the changing nature of American Power” and also further broadened in his  “The means to success in world politics” in (2004). He described soft power as a country’s ability in achieving its international goals through attraction and persuasion rather than through coercion. A country with substantial soft power influences others by projecting an attractive culture, political values, and foreign policies that are considered legitimate and morally appealing and this was the basic idea of President J.F Kennedy when establishing USAID.

According to Council on Foreign Relations (cfr) USA has been able to spread her wings through humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and it’s through such models that President G.Bush’s President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was operated. The Secretary of State Marko Rubio has said it was waived to go on but that has proved to be untrue because USAID systems were it’s back bone.

cfr also ascertains that USAID was a pillar to US’s development projects that are aimed at economic stability and capacity building to bring about America’s image as a promoter of progress and prosperity. USAID has also been a key vehicle in the promotion of democracy and human rights agenda by Washington for the last 6 decades. At the end of the day the agency has been at frontier of American diplomacy according to Jay Caspian Kang’s America’s Soft Power Retreat in the New Yorker published on February 7th 2025.

In Uganda USAID through PEPFAR has been providing antiretroviral therapy to 1.2 million people and credited for reduction in HIV prevalence since the early 2000s, under the same 28 million nets were distributed to fight malaria, the Feed the Future that benefits 2.8 million farmers is a product of USAID, in the 2021 elections 10,000 observers of the process were trained by USAID resources. USAID has also provided funds used for micro loans through its private partners since 2015 helping about half a million Ugandans.

It’s now clear that even after the 90 days set in motion by the President Trump’s EO pausing U.S. foreign development assistance, all the above will be no more. This creates a gap that needs to be field by the Private sector that was already contributing 40% of USAID annual budget according to the organization’s former chief Samantha Powers and known US diplomat.

The global South will be looking at Europe that has a war going on. The Gulf Nations that have soft power agendas that come into play but most importantly the Trump has created a vacuum organizations like the BRICS can seize and shape the new world order that is desired.

In a tweet Marko Rubio said he would not travel to South Africa for the G20, in the 2024 summit in Brazil the global South dominated the forum and it’s time for China and also other middle Powers like South Africa, Indonesia, Brazil, from each region to garner others to ogfer Solutions from the perspective of the global South.

In the last decade 2013-2023 China contributed 45% of direct aid to Africa, and Beijing’s model is the best to bring about self sufficiency because it’s not free like America’s. The global South needs aid that is tied to infrastructure projects in terms of consensual loans that have to be paid back the moment the projects are up and running. There is a likelihood China will offer affordable alternatives to Africa’s health sectors, and already the African Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Addis Ababa is fully funded by China and was not affected by Washington’s revisions of foreign aid.

The Global South can better develop with transactional aid tied to economic returns, these returns can then be used to fund areas like education and health, there is no harm in aid being tied to Geopolitical interests as China will need the political backing from the global South at the United Nations and other multilateral organizations that desire reform to create a just world that may not have the concept of foreign aid in the long run because most countries would have the ability to achieve real wealth.

The fast changing dynamics in global aid that are gravely impacting the most poor and underdeveloped countries create a situation that needs solutions and an opportunity for organizations like BRICS, African Union and the G20 with withdrawn United States to reshape the world order.

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

Trump’s Tariffs on Mexico, China and Canadian Products: Boom or Bust?

Posted on By Ernest Talwana

As of 1st February, 2025, the U.S. President, Donald .J. Trump announced tariffs on Mexican, Canadian and previously Chinese products as a means to usher in his so-called “Golden Age” for America (U.S.). These tariffs essentially place a 25% tax on imports from Canada and Mexico which is simply a deterrence against American manufacturers buying foreign raw materials in favour of American made products and by-products under the current president’s slogan of Making America Great Again.

However, such protectionism has often been problematic as it creates a situation where equally large consumers reciprocate said tariffs against a state that initially places them. This creates an environment where the global supply chain is strained by high production costs which provide a challenge to the end consumer who isn’t as willing to meet the inflated end cost.

Equally, it should be noted that, unlike China that can be perceived as an Eastern rival to the “Free World”, Canada and Mexico are longstanding allies of the United States with partnerships stretching back into the 60s, the most recent agreement being the US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, signed in 2018 that fosters free trade amongst the three North American states.

Trump’s new wave of protectionism is therefore blatant abrasive action against long standing members and would equally be met with retaliatory measures by his country’s long standing partners.

North America aside, China, Trump’s original boogeyman has long accepted her place as the U.S’s main trade enemy and has built internal capacity to bolster her economy against external aggression. The main consumer of Chinese products is China herself. If not China, her major trade partners include ASEAN states comprising Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Brunei, Thailand, Myanmar, the Philippines, Cambodia, Singapore and Malaysia.

These nations provide a substantial market for Chinese manufacturing thus having minimal reliance on the West. EU sanctions(at the behest of the US) on Chinese EVs provide a significant impediment to Chinese trade with Europe but this has proven nit to limit Chinese trade which relies on a variety of trade partners like Germany and Hungary to sell a significant number of Chinese products to these respective states.

China has, therefore, essentially built resilience against America’s global protectionist net.

What does this portend for closer allies like Canada, Mexico and the E.U who are Trump’s next targets?

It can be inferred that many states and regional blocs will take retaliatory measures to protect their industrial base as well as significantly showing the American consumer that trade protectionism affects the entire planet through rising costs in products such as fertiliser for farmers, food products for the hospitality industry and increasing costs of mechanical equipment.  Americans are all too aware that rising living costs pushed them to the polls to vote in favour of Trump who promised a Golden Age for America…

Protectionism, though creates an insular mindset and rather usher in a Golden Age, creates an environment where trade partners feel agitated and equally resort to protecting their own economies.

Trump’s policy doesn’t seem to be aware of how interconnected global trade is. America cannot produce all that she consumes. This means that, even while the U.S is a net exporter of natural gas and oil, she is reliant on more affordable Canadian gas to keep the cost of heating affordable for the ordinary American.. The ordinary American who voted him into power on the premise of Making America Great Again.

On the other side of the pond, Trump’s protectionism has the effect of pushing the E.U more to the East.  European states have shown that they’re willing to take the pragmatic approach to make living affordable for their own populations. This includes reopening relations with Russia as well as warming up to Chinese trade.

It is in this very scenario that burning bridges with allies may most definitely make America fall flat on their faces with tariffs that can be seen as shortsighted. Even with supposed control of the Panama Canal that Trump is agitating for, various international seaways outside of America’s backyard require more collaboration and less aggressive action to make trade smoother and more effective for the entire world(developed world if you want to be more blunt).

Simply put, it is uncertain as to whether the recently imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico will usher in a Golden Age for America, or create a façade of control that Trump postures to have which might be further from the truth.

Ernest Talwana is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre

President Trump’s Aid Freeze is his gift to Africa: A lesson on Self-Reliance?

Posted on By Shemei Ndawula

I have recently learned  that when a United States of America agency funding an organisation tells it to stop working, it means exactly that. If the funding goes towards electricity or travel expenses, you are expected to turn off the lights and ground all the vehicles. I have a close friend in Kampala working at a John Hopkins University funded project who has been at home for close to a week now because of an executive order President Donald Trump signed last week.

Last week, on January 24th the US Department of State put a stop to almost all foreign aid while the new government initiates a review of these projects. This means most of the staff who where working on these projects are (at least for the duration of the review) effectively unemployed. The complication with this is that the majority of US funded projects in Africa are in the sectors of Public Health. Halting so many of these projects means that there will be real impact to the ordinary Ugandans and the shockwaves of these decisions will be felt throughout the health sector of the country.

It is estimated that the PEPFAR project alone impacts the lives of over 24 million people in the global south. This is not to mention the thousands of projects directly under USAID funding. This is perhaps the most brutal wake up call African governments could receive from the newly elected American president. This wake up call puts African nationals at a very important precipice of their development where they have to choose whether to keep relying on handouts and “Charity” from the west or pick themselves up by the bootstraps and develop their own capacity.

Indeed this decision has already been made for them because while the Makerere Infectious Diseases Initiative (IDI) in Kampala is drafting “stay at home” letters for its employees, the Chinese funded and built African Union Center for Disease Control(CDC) in Addis Ababa is operating smoothly. While many have in the past few years criticized African governments for taking Chinese loans calling these loans “exploitative”, history has proven that this is a sound economical structure for development because both parties emerge as partners in development with a win-win situation instead of recipients of charity. Partnership in development preserves mutual respect and accountability while charity keeps us in a perpetual circle of foreign influence because benevolence can always be retracted.

Interestingly the United States Mission in Uganda has for the past year used the tagline “real help not loans”. This is probably a subtle diplomatic jibe at the Chinese foreign policy structure that funnels a significant part of their development aid to Africans through infrastructure loans. However most of the loans provided by the People’s Republic of China are consensual loans which for he most part pay for themselves. For example road tolls are still being collected at the Entebbe expressway to cover the Chinese loan acquired to build the road after which all the money collected shall go towards national development.

In hindsight the real help(charity) as envisioned by the United States Mission in Uganda turns out to be an unsustainable development model because for the past 60 years it’s proven to be a panacea of the symptoms of underdevelopment without addressing the actual causes. This may explain why this year the mission changed it’s social media tagline to “Real Results, Real Impact” which is also a little ironic because one of the first impacts of the new administration was freezing funding of vital public healthcare and social welfare initiatives in the country.

But let us be honest, the real impact of this executive decision is the disruption of the flourishing NGO sector within Africa. African governments can; if they really want to, cover the deficit caused by lack of American funding for these vital healthcare projects. China has been showing them how to do this for decades now. The frontline victims of this freeze are the NGO workers like my friend who won’t be able to meet rent at the end of the month, or who’s children won’t be able to report to school at the start of the academic year because of salary delays for these three months and a possibility that their contracts won’t be renewed. The real victims are the government officers who won’t be going to the fancy capacity building workshops at the end of the month to sign for lucrative allowances.

This is definitely disruptive, especially to the fragile Ugandan middle class but definitely not disastrous and this is perhaps the best opportunity for African governments to realise that we are now living in a multipolar world and we need to get African solutions for African problems. Uganda was earlier on suspended from the AGOA initiative and the economy did not crumble. Key government figures have been sanctioned by the United States for decades but this has never truly affected government efficiency. President Trump has on a not so subtle way given African governments an opportunity to introspect on their national development and bilateral alliances and if we can use this period productively, Africa may emerge even stronger and more resilient from this aid freeze and the inevitable aid cuts even after the  review period.

Shemei Ndawula is a Senior Research Fellow at Development Watch Centre.