Tag: Trump

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.

 

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CHINA PROBLEM: WHO GAINS OR LOSES FROM THE TARIFFS?

Posted on By Admin

Eras come to end. Sometimes not completely, but somehow on a scale of extents, they end. History is littered with a plethora of the same. Contextualize historical Babylon, Rome, Ottoman, Zulu, even close to the great lakes region, Bunyoro Kitara empire. USSR! They surely have timelines. And there are tales to what led to the collapse in time, with ‘some’ emerging eras picking lessons. At the apex of the pile of the era’s supremacy sits pride. Not ordinarily for pride, but the never-ending pride that brings with it immense sense of immortality. And so the scribes of history keep registering new entrants as they walk on the ruins of those they take after.

The United States of America is the present era, and although many might disagree, it surely is. Until the peak of Cold War, the US made its grand entry into laying the final layer to its foundation of an era that has lived through time to this very day. But eras do not usually end on mere wishes of a day’s collapse, the events contributing a fabric to the entire veil of collapse take distinct timelines and usually a considerable time. Could it be such a point in time to witness another grand fall? China by the start of the Cold War, to many that were distracted by the unfolding of the ‘silent’ war was just like many other economies of the time ‘trying to figure it out’, even though some critics and historians safely state that the trajectory to China’s present global image had quite started a little earlier than as when the cold war started.

During President Donald Trump’s first term, the world was not surprised that the US imposed tariffs on China ranging distinctively averagely between 10% to 25%. In fact, there was a threat that with the continuous events of the day, there was possibility that the tariffs would grow to over 60% a state of affairs that China and a couple of other states vehemently disagreed with. But to the US administration of the day, it was just another typical US response to one of its present adversaries. President Joe Biden’s administration picked from what the Republicans had started and until the recent second return of President Trump into the White House for his final term as President, more escalation towards more tariffs has been intimated. What awaits is concreting of the sentiments when he is sworn in on 20th January, 2025.

But who loses? Safe it is to state that China is the most measurable fair competitor of the US on quite a number of metrics vis-à-vis the public perception of Russia as worthy enough. Of all measure points, outstanding most is the ‘economy’. China has maintained a consistent economic growth rate, inspire of the shortfalls caused by COVID-19 which disruption only slowed the country’s steady growth, but even then, the growth did not remain static. Which its growing foreign influence and policies among others wrapped in international export of drivers of the economy, some economists and foreign relations experts predict that a clearer match of the world’s two leading economies might be realized as fast as early 2035. Not so many years from today. The US exports as much into the China market as much as the US relies on China’s labour that informed base establishments by numerous US companies on China mainland to ease its expense burdens while maximizing profits. The US export farmers for example by the end of 2024 showcased fear arising from President Trump’s statements that a projection of about 3.1$ Billion is on the verge of being lost with introduction of new tariffs.

President Xi’s government has maintained its stance on the effect of such tariffs, as undermining global commerce but President Trump maintains his confidence albeit serious warnings of the implications. Interestingly, in a bid to make America great again, America will suffer more. A sharp spike in goods costs is something that cannot be overemphasized. It is expected, interestingly at a time of growing global resentment for US foreign policy perpetuated in the past and those incoming. China is not the major US problem. US rather, is US’s major problem. As Trump takes leadership, many members of the African Union stand on the hill that the grant of two seats (rotational) to the UN Security Council, and yet cannot vote on resolutions there, although proposal introduced by the US is not enough but an act of alleged continuous US bullying. But China that disagrees with such crumbing comes out as the ‘enemy’ to the US.

Turkey a NATO member has since showcased interest in joining BRICS. Saudi Arabia already did. And more BRICS issues. The Taiwan unsolved question and the scramble for more NATO membership and its consequences. A tale of eras. The world has over and over proved to be an undeniable global community whose dictates are fundamental mutual respect relations. It begs to witness the end to the pipeline of the tariffs confidence, but debatable, the world international commerce trends do not stand in the US interests especially when juxtaposed with US’s aspirations to continuously keep leading as the world’s biggest economy. It is a losing game.

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Development Watch Center.

 

Analysing China-US Relations Under Trump’s Second Term

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

One of the most significant and highly complex bilateral relationships in the world today is the diplomatic relationship between the United States and China. Over the years of changing administrations and presidents, China might have come to the conclusion that US-China strategic competition is to endure, almost in similar characteristics, irrespective of who swings in the chair in the Oval Office. But certainly, Donald Trump is a president characteristically like no other. Despite the structural interests of US foreign policy that would make it predictable regardless of who the president is, there is room to analyse what Trump’s second presidency would hold out for China-US relations.

For the two countries and the entire world, cooperation between each other is paramount, lest we would have devastating implications altogether as a globe. Mismanaging China-US relations could potentially yield consequences of historically unprecedented proportions.

President Trump and President Xi Jinping’s characters are important to this analysis because of the person-centeredness of foreign policy action. Trump, and all his “isms” carries ambiguities in his foreign policy approach, and generally lacks structured placement of administrative thought to predict him as likely to hold a certain standard. His worldview is often described as transactional and business-oriented based on his entrepreneurial background. On the other hand, Xi is a man of calm, perceptive and grounded thought. He has written deeply and broadly about his world view; his commitment to a shared future for mankind, and his determination to ensure peaceful co-existence with all countries – big or small. Xi Jinping is unprejudiced by any personal political biases. His clarity of the kind of future for mankind is not selfish for China only as Trump’s is on “America First.”

In his first term, Trump pursued quite a confrontational foreign policy towards China. He rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Obama had reached with China. He waged an unprecedented tariff war against Chinese exports, negatively impacting the US’s own economy. He attempted to halt the development of Huawei’s 5G network for allegedly being a means of Chinese cyberaggression, among many other policies that caused deep friction between China-US relations.

Based on the foreign policy mistakes of the first Trump presidency, it seems he was genuinely ignorant of the reasonable fact that cooperation between the USA and China, as the world’s two largest economies, is fundamental to collective global stability.

The theory of realism is key in foreign policy analysis. It states that the state is the main unitary actor and rational actor seeking to maximize and expand its national interest and objectives, usually from the standpoint of promoting international security. The wisdom Trump requires in his second term is how to pursue the US national interests and ambitions without provoking China with the same confrontation and hostility he exhibited in his first term.

Trump and the West should make peace with a multipolar world and resist the urge to slow down the progress of countries like China and force them to respect American priorities. That world—the world where such a possibility resides—may still linger in the imagination of Western leaders, but it is now behind us.

The future of global stability is in win-win cooperation which is championed by President Xi, not President Trump’s worldview of a zero-sum approach to bilateral relations. I do not see why it should burden Western leaders to embrace Xi’s vision of the global community as sharing a common destiny where all nations benefit from cooperating instead of seeking global domination.  The ideological differences between the USA and China are becoming clearer to the world audience and more nations are starting to prefer China’s ideological policy standpoints and reading through the selfishness and unsustainability of the American self-righteous belief systems.

A state cannot have a sound foreign policy if it sits on a shaky domestic public policy. This was one of Trump’s undoings in the first term, and if he did not learn his lessons, might come to haunt him again. If his second term is also punctuated by weaknesses in domestic policy and scuffles with democrats, China is likely to enjoy more productive foreign policy. Xi Jinping is a popular leader at home and the Chinese Communist Party enjoys resounding appeal, is well-organised and disciplined. The more Trump will likely pull ropes with democrats at home, the more likely China’s Belt and Road Initiative will expand as China enjoys stability at home and respect abroad.

If Trump continues pursuing his isolationist agenda full-throttle as he did in the first term, he is likely to benefit China by driving the US’ traditional allies, especially the European Union, towards China. Many American and EU companies are already highly dependent on China’s high-scale, high-precision manufacturing prowess. In further pursuing decoupling from China, Trump will be glueing the EU economically tighter with China, because there will be less diversion of Chinese trade from the EU to the US.

So, Trump needs to understand that the EU lacks an inherent and plausible interest in geostrategically containing China. It is rather in their interest to harness a reciprocal primarily economic and technological interdependency with China based on reciprocity and jointly agreed-upon principles and rules.

Above all, as stated earlier, Trump and the Western world generally need to embrace the changes happening globally. The world is inclined towards multipolarity. The political ideologies of Western nations need to change shape, from the traditional neocolonial obsession with their own way of doing things and controlling the world to a more respectful one, like China’s commitment to peaceful co-existence and mutual respect for all the world’s nations.

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Development Watch Center.

TRUMP AND THE BRICS QUESTION: WHAT CURRENCY?

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

By Alan Collins Mpewo,

Strange global times. Syria’s 50 years long guard has been pushed out of standing by the gunbarrel. The US that had long sought solutions to the pushover has decided to distance itself through its President, Trump, who like in his first term of presidency, ruled out wanton war on foreign soil. But Trump has been busy on tabs of excellency to realize his slogan, “make America great again.” As a reader, you are familiar with this phrase, but that is besides what has transpired in H.E Donald Trump’s first days. The BRICS has been in optics that even the outgoing US Executive has been careful at quick response through retaliation. The currency question – ‘Which global currency?’ You can deduce the extension to the question in your context. Which global currency for international trade? Business? Consortium exchanges? Which currency?

The dollar, without ” doubt has been on a run (still is) of global dominance that in many spaces, it is the cynical god of international finance. That an export farmer in Maputo, Mozambique to without foreseeable obstacles, has to heed to the global financial god’s declaration. To yield to compliance. So should the fabrics trader at Saint Catherine in Egypt, or a cosmetics shipper in São Paulo in Brazil. Other global currencies notwithstanding have kept their places on the financial radar but that is it, such are their places. But it is more than just the finances as generically understood. Since the Cold War, retaliation and offense has continued to evolve. Sanctions have gradually become a resounding declaration of ‘power’. To use the term ‘authority’ would be modest. Global power. Who rules what. Who does what. Who says what. Who suffers what. All these bundled are showcased in the consequences. Economies have collapsed because of sanctions. The consequences cannot be over emphasized.

Russia, and until the recent decades China, have become constant parallels to the Western power axis. The side looks given by mandated regulators like the UN have rather amplified the growing resentment from the BRICS. Until December, 2023, BRICS still maintained its founding membership since its formation in 2009, but as of February, 2024, more than 4 countries have joined the alliance, and about a dozen others had been invited to join as of October, 2024. It says a lot about the growing tensions over the scrambled power points globally and expected response to cross border bullying. The currency is now the ticket element to factor because with it, lies a possible circumvention of diplomatic suppression.

While one sees themselves for statesmen, others see for a tyrant. Trump is no stranger to this just as Putin and Xi Jinping have endured criticism. But this state of affairs is what if forming a paradox. Trump is resolute on effecting the ‘Make America Great Again’ project, but so are his far East adversaries. To all, tyranny is what many onlookers have expressed. The complexity has called for restraint in enforcement as noted by Putin regarding a slowed process of modeling a BRICS currency, halting the idea indefinitely for until it can be revived. However, that is not a case for other BRICS members who certainly have their attention seasoned to realising a BRICS currency. It suffices to say that while the fears of potential loss of the current currency dominance has been brushed off by Europe as nonexistent, President Trump’s statements against the BRICS idea rather gives a new outlook to potentially what might perhaps become public.

It is not common in international relations that events happen denied earlier turn out true and so is the timing, given the drastic BRICS membership extension. The US is going to scrap on new battle lines, this time not more of warfare as gunned into its current government’s philosophy of ‘each country’s internal fragile politics, to be determined internally without US intervention’ unless it concerns it, but rather a mild shake up of how far it would go if the BRICS member states finally put a final leg across the finish line. Expectations suffice, and to be fair, the pushback on sanctions. The ICC has gradually been falling for the outcry of impartiality and so were the sanctions against Israel’s Premier. More to look out for battle lines in Washington DC. It is going to be an interesting term in administration for the new US Executive regarding inherited conflicts, and shaping controversies.

But it remains certain that international trade and commerce is kind. Own it, own power. China figured this out in its shaping of the Industrial age and for decades now, manifestation is being showcased in its financial situation. That it is part of BRICS is another storyline. Two of the West’s greatest adversaries continue expanding alliances and since 2019, the shakeup has gained greater tract at it epicenter. One way or another, the BRICS currency will manifest, and when it does, the paradox will find new meaning. It may take decades to achieve, but with the present global tension, Trump will only slow the process.

The writer is a Lawyer and Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Center .

What Ugandans can expect from a second Trump Presidency

Posted on By Shemei Ndawula

The legendary Austrian aristocrat Prïñcë Metternich is credited for coining the phrase “when France sneezes, Europe catches a cold”. In the peripherals of the Napoleonic era, his belief was that anything that happened in France had an immediate impact on the whole Europe. At the moment, when America sneezes, the world starts drafting Covid advisories.

For the last few months we have been holding baited breaths watching the largely two horse race of President Trump  and Vice President Harris. Someone recently joked that the Americans should host a masterclass on how to turn your elections into the Grammys of elective politics. Even as the world shifts to a multipolar balance of power, there’s no election remotely close to being as followed as the American presidential election.

President Donald Trump’s first term marked a seeming shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Africa, with an emphasis on reducing direct U.S. involvement while promoting a competitive stance toward European and by large China’s influence. For Uganda and other African nations, the return of President Trump means notable shifts in diplomatic relations, trade policies, and the flow of U.S. aid.

There’s an urban myth that the sitting President does not impact the foreign policies of America much because of how entrenched its bureaucratic machine is. However Trump has pitted himself against this very machine throughout his campaign so his effectiveness will be measured(in the eyes of his voters) in how much he’s able to dislodge it.

The Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy is simply“America First”. For Africans, this often translates to a reduction in direct political engagement and a heightened focus on countering the influence of global powers like China and Russia. President Trump’s rhetoric and actions seem to view Africa  as a strategic foothold against economic and political rivals rather than a region of developmental and diplomatic partnership.

In this second term, we could expect Trump to continue this stance, potentially minimizing U.S. diplomatic engagement unless they are directly aligned with American economic or security interests. This could result in a more transactional relationship where support or partnerships is more negotiable upon political alignment with U.S. strategic interests.

As a country , our position in East Africa as a counter-terrorism ally can possibly still bolster our negotiating power as a  valuable partner of the United States. However, our diplomatic corp needs to understand that Trump means business so we need a comprehensive diplomatic shift transitioning to the Trump Presidency and not just feeling our way through the process.

In trade, President Trump’s past stance involved a shift toward bilateral agreements over multilateral trade deals, which could reshape how the U.S. interacts economically with African countries. Previously, the Trump administration showed limited interest in enhancing or modernizing the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which provides African countries duty-free access to U.S. markets(Uganda was excluded with much fanfare earlier this year). A second term might see the continuation of this stance, potentially pushing African nations, including Uganda, to negotiate individual trade agreements with the U.S.

Uganda has historically benefited from aid from the United States especially in areas like  healthcare, particularly through PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), which provides critical support for HIV/AIDS programs. On the other hand President Trump’s approach to aid is more transactional, suggesting that countries benefitting from U.S. aid might be expected to align with U.S foreign policy objectives.

Arguably security aid might not be as directly affected and may even increase, particularly if Uganda continues its role in regional counter-terrorism initiatives in countries like Somalia, where our boots on ground have historically supported United States aligned missions. This creates  a lopsided aid structure favoring security funding over health, education, or infrastructure, making Uganda’s development trajectory more challenging to sustain.

In President Trump’s first administration he consistently tried  to counter what he called China’s influence on the global stage. On the other hand Uganda has embraced significant investment and infrastructure development from China. Unlike the Biden administration, President Trump has often employed a blunt, public approach in addressing governance challenges in other countries, and a similar stance in Uganda could create friction.

However, given Trump’s non-interventionist tendencies in such matters, any direct influence would likely be more rhetorical than otherwise. The Ugandan government might face fewer direct repercussions, but heightened criticism could still impact Uganda’s and perhaps Africa’s world outlook and potentially influence other Western nations’ policies.

Ultimately, this presidency means that African nations should explore diversified international alliances and self-sustained growth, a concept we’ve flirted with for decades. Perhaps a Trump presidency is exactly what we need to benchmark on how to (or perhaps not to) put Africa first

 

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

 

US Presidential Debate. Here’s what you need to know about tonight’s showdown.

Posted on By Admin

Kate Sullivan

Less than two weeks from Election Day, Joe Biden and President Trump are scheduled to appear onstage  9:00 p.m. ET for the final general election presidential debate of 2020.

The televised event may be the last opportunity for both candidates to reach a massive national audience before Nov. 3.

Here’s everything you need to know about the final debate:

  • The location: The debate will take place at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee. It is scheduled to run from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. ET without commercial breaks.
  • The topics: Debate moderator, NBC’s Kristen Welker, will bring six topics: “Fighting COVID-19,” “American Families,” “Race in America,” “Climate Change,” “National Security” and “Leadership.”
  • The debate structure: Each segment will last about 15 minutes, and the candidates will have two minutes to respond after the moderator opens each segment with a question. Welker will then use the rest of the time in the segment to facilitate further discussion on the topic.
  • How this debate is different: The Commission on Presidential Debates recently announced that Biden and Trump would have their microphones muted during portions of the debate. At the start of each of the six segments, each candidate will be given two minutes to answer an initial question, and during that portion, the opposing candidate’s microphone will be muted. The rule change was made after the first debate devolved into chaos, with Trump frequently interrupting and heckling Biden and the moderator, Chris Wallace of Fox News.Reporting by CNN’s reporter.