Tag: USA

For Whoever Controls Rare Minerals, Shall Inherit the Earth: US-China Trade War Chapter 2 Verse 1

Posted on By Moshi Isreal

For centuries, humankind has fought wars over oil, land and faith. The wars of today and perhaps the future will be about who controls the jewels of the earth, those rare earth minerals that power our age. They are in our chips, batteries, satellites, and missiles. For many countries, these elements power the very systems that guarantee their dominance. At the center of this struggle, stands the world’s largest economies, the United States and China. How this contest unfolds will depend not on bullying, threats and blackmail but on diplomacy, tact and compromise.

The second chapter of the U.S-China trade war kicked off with a bang. China fired a warning shot that has quite literally left the ground shaking. According to Aljazeera, China announced export controls on five more rare-earth metals- Holmium, erbium, thulium, europium and ytterbium adding to earlier restrictions on samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium. Alongside these, China also restricted the export of specialist technological equipment used to refine rare earth metals. Foreign entities will now have to obtain special government approvals if they wish to export any material that contain at least 0.1 percent heavy rare earth metals from China.

As expected, the move left Washington fuming. Donald Trump took to the socials to vent his frustration, threatening 100% tariffs on Chinese exports and new export controls on critical software. The self-styled ‘king of tariffs’ went even further by questioning the importance of his highly anticipated meeting with President Xi during the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit (APEC) in South Korea later this month. Global markets and policy makers are again on tenterhooks, bracing for another phase of the largely damaging trade war between the world’s largest economies.

In this fog of trade-war, it is important to separate facts from fiction. Despite the supposed truce between both countries, the United States has continued to blacklist Chinese firms and impose port fees on china-linked ships. The Trump administration has not shied away from referring to China as an enemy and demonizing it at every turn. Washington’s long-term objective is clear: to contain China and isolate it for the mere ‘crime’ of being too good a competitor. The U.S. cites its ‘national interests’ as justification for its actions against Beijing, half a world away. However, the question practically asks itself, if Washington can behave this way in the name of national security, what stops China from doing the same?

The export controls on rare earth minerals are an assertion of sovereignty and safeguarding national interests. Rare earth metals are not run-of-the mill goods of trade. They are the hidden backbone of advanced weaponry. These elements are critical in the production of fighter jets, Submarines, radar systems, missiles, drones, smart bombs and AI driven military systems. If anything, China has a stronger moral case: Its restrictions include exemptions for humanitarian and emergency uses such as medical and disaster relief.

The world must root for the Trump-Xi summit in South Korea to take place. The two most powerful leaders in the world need to sit down and talk. Dialogue, not ultimatums will resolve this contest. The United States should approach the table with some humility and respect for China’s national interests, something Beijing has consistently emphasized. For constructive international relations, respect for sovereignty, and the legitimate security concerns of other nations is an essential prerequisite. Trump’s approach of strong-arming countries into ‘deals’ will not work with China. Compromise grounded in mutual benefit is the only path forward. The President of the United States must have learned from his attempts to force India away from Russian oil that it simply does not work that way anymore. Instead, India has grown closer to China, a development that strengthens global stability but complicates Washington’s foreign policy objectives in the Indo-pacific.

China will approach this summit from a position of strength. It controls 90% of the world’s rare earth elements, dominates lithium-ion battery supply chains, and controls a vast network of mineral processing facilities that the West lacks both the capacity and the political will to replicate in the short term. Most importantly, Beijing has shown a willingness to engage in dialogue and compromise. The United States must come to terms with the fact that China is now a pace setter, a capable competitor unafraid to defend its national interests.

Perhaps the most significant outcome for the Global South and the rest of the world would be Washington’s recognition that Beijing has the potential to become an indispensable partner. This would open opportunities, to borrow from Trump’s signature turn of phrase “the likes of which the world has never seen before.” Now is a time for diplomacy and not war, for dialogue and not threats.

The Writer is a Senior Research Fellow at DWC.

 

 

How the West sacrificed Ukraine for the so-called Liberal Ideals

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

One of the apparent issues involved, and what partly explains the cause of the Ukrainian war, is the difference in approach to international politics between Western leaders and the Russians. NATO nations and the American foreign policy elites seem to adhere, sincerely or hypocritically, to liberal ideals about the exercise of international politics. On the other hand, the elites in Moscow and Putin himself seem to hold a realist approach. The effect of this is that Moscow is more pragmatic about resolving the conflict, whereas its Western counterparts are dogmatic.

The final losers in this war will definitely be the people of Ukraine, whose myopic leaders have sacrificed their country as a battleground for big-power rivalry.

Let us begin by remembering the words of American leaders on the issue of expanding NATO eastwards.

When former US President Joe Biden was still a senator, serving on the Foreign Relations Committee in 1997, he stated that the one place where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short term, in terms of US-Russian and NATO-Russian relations, would be the admission of the Baltic states into NATO. He warned that that would tip the balance and induce a vigorous and hostile reaction from Russia. That was in 1997! It was 25 years later, in 2022, that the Ukrainian war broke out. Is it, therefore, right to describe Russia as an unprovoked aggressor?

When, at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO members proposed to integrate Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, the former CIA director, William J. Burns, and former U.S. ambassador to Moscow warned Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state then, that the entry of Ukraine into NATO was the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite, not just Putin. In the secret cable he sent her, he noted that: “In my more than two-and-a-half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russia’s interests … Today’s Russia will respond.”

In 2014, when consideration was made to add Georgia and Ukraine to NATO, Jack Matlock, America’s last ambassador to the Soviet Union, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He stated, “I consider the administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.”

Henry Kissinger, arguably one of the greatest scholars on international relations the world will ever know, opined in The Washington Post in March 2014 that for Ukraine to survive, it should function as a bridge rather than an outpost of either NATO or Russia. He discouraged Ukraine from joining NATO.  He noted that: “Putin is a serious strategist on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology is not his strong suit. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers. Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing.”

Contrary to Kissinger’s wise advice, American and European leaders have instead deployed their media to manufacture the narrative that portrays Putin as a devil, and themselves as saviours. In his own words, Kissinger humorously made a solemn aphorism that “the demonisation of Putin is not a policy, it’s an alibi for not having one.”

In one of the longest, agonising diplomatic negotiations in history, Russia appealed to NATO members not to expand eastwards. President Boris Yeltsin wrote to Bill Clinton in 1993, arguing that the expansion of NATO breached the spirit of the 1990 Two Plus Four Treaty on German reunification. Even as Yeltsin initially conceded to Poland’s campaign to join NATO at the time, he later retracted in the face of domestic pressure. It was 29 years later, in 2022, that the war in Ukraine broke out. So, how can it be reduced to the character of Putin?

In the end, Ukraine will be unable to defeat Russia without American support. Yet America is least likely to invade a nuclear-armed power, as that would spell Mutual Assured Destruction. In the face of that uphill battle, it’s Ukraine that stands to lose. Russia will bleed to the last corporal, but will never surrender to Ukraine. It would be better for the Ukrainian leadership to abandon NATO membership and seek neutrality.

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

Russia-Ukraine Crisis: The Unintended Consequences of America’s Ukrainian Gambit

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

The Ukrainian war is not only a war between Ukraine and Russia. It is a war between the U.S./NATO and Russia. Ukraine is simply the battleground. And the Ukrainian army is doing the U.S./NATO’s bidding. The U.S., having gathered lessons from wars it has lost in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam, calculated that if it provoked and drew Russia into a similar war against Ukraine, Russia would invade and suffer a war of attrition. America’s contribution would be to arm, train, and do propaganda for Ukrainian fighters. That it has done.

It is highly difficult to win a war against nationalistic struggles. It is nationalism that defeated colonialism in Africa. It is also nationalism that defeated American imperialism in Vietnam and Afghanistan. America understands so well that despite Russia’s firepower, it would never easily defeat Ukraine, even if it has the means to devastate it. The protracted war would leave Russia exhausted, militarily, economically and socially.

Anyone who has studied the history of NATO-Russia and U.S.-Russia relations would understand that this conflict has little to nothing to do with Kiev. There have been decades of negotiations between Russia and NATO/U.S. over the expansion of NATO eastwards. Therefore, it is fallacious for governing elites in Kiev to believe the story told by the Western media in explaining the conflict. It is presented as a conflict stemming from Russia’s unprovoked aggression, with the Ukrainian side portrayed as fighting for its sovereignty and independence. This is a strategic misrepresentation of facts and reality. The real truth is that Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty are an excuse, not an explanation for why America and its European satellites instigated this war.

Besides the likelihood of the war spiralling into nuclear armageddon, it is the unimagined and unintended consequences which may emanate from this conflict that are most concerning.

The trajectory of wars is difficult to predict. Consider any war in history, and the results of the conflict would rarely have been foreseen. Take World War I for example, where a murder incident of a Prince led to events that, within four years, concluded the collapse of four great empires – Austria, Russia, Germany and the Ottoman empires. Therefore, the Ukrainian war could even end in the destruction of NATO and the collapse of Western global influence, especially since the war is divergently contrasted with the genocide in Gaza, which is funded by the same Western nations posturing to care about the human rights and self-determination of the Ukrainian people, while funding the slaughter of babies, women and men in Palestine.

Additionally, the Ukrainian war led to the stoppage of purchasing affordable Russian gas by European countries, leading to inflation caused by high costs of energy costs. Eventually, this is leading to economic decline and further declining living standards, which are also leading to the emergence of far-right political movements. These movements could in future totally change the political environment in Europe in ways unfathomable.

One of the major weaknesses exposed by this war is the failure of Western sanctions to de-energise Russia. These sanctions, described as “crippling” by the West, turn out to have no significant crippling effect at all. It was expected that these sanctions would push Russia’s financial system into disarray and stagnate its international trade. The West imagined Russia losing the value of the ruble and being unable to earn from its foreign exchanges. The West imagined Russia unable to pay for goods and services from abroad. This would ultimately hinder the ability of Moscow to fund the war, hence lose militarily in Ukraine.

As things have turned out, those were simply wishful imaginations.

The financial war launched against Russia has proved largely ineffective because the Western market no longer occupies a significant portion of international trade and investment. New dynamic markets have emerged in Asia and the global south, creating alternatives for international investments and trade outside of Europe and North America.

Indeed, despite the “crippling sanctions” levied against Russia, its economy continued to grow at rates higher than most European economies. It seems that Moscow had already foreseen such economic warfare coming years ahead, and started to nurture new markets and relationships in Asia as an alternative to the European market.

It has now been exposed that America and its European allies are incapable of successfully waging an economic war against their adversaries. That realisation has shifted global power dynamics. Imagine what other countries would do when they see that you sanction your enemies to destroy their economies during conflicts… they would strategically start shifting away from overreliance on the dollar as a global currency. This is what has started to happen. Several countries are now starting to trade using the Yuan in what is termed the “internationalisation of the yuan.”

Since America is occasionally fighting wars around different corners of the world, it is unlikely for other countries to assume they will always be at peace with it. With America’s shifting interests comes shifting loyalties, rendering American friendship an unreliable adventure which must be enjoyed with caution. Decoupling from the dollar is thus one of the ways to diversify risks emanating from the suspicion with which most reasonable countries engage American foreign policy. The Ukrainian war has revealed this more.

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

How Western Hubris Led to the Ukrainian War

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

One of the greatest instruments for waging war are the tools of mass propaganda. The West, i.e., the USA and NATO nations, are armed to the teeth with these. They control international news and feed audiences with anti-Russian/ anti-Putin propaganda dressed as journalism. Thus, they blame the war in Ukraine entirely on Russia. They also portray President Vladimir Putin as a maniac, disgruntled with the collapse of the Soviet empire and seeking its reconstruction. Far from the truth.

A long list of Western diplomats, politicians, great academics, and men of great standing would tell you that the United States and its NATO colleagues (hereinafter the West) take the greatest responsibility/ blame for this needless war.

The main cause of the war is NATO’s expansion into Russia’s orbit. Russian leaders always warned, since the 1990s, that turning a strategic neighbour like Ukraine into a Western outpost on the doorstep of Russia would never be accepted. This is also why Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014. Putin had feared, rightly so, that the peninsula would host a NATO naval base.

Any great power would push back if another power roamed into its backyard, threatening its strategic interests. The West/ USA knows this better. That’s why they wouldn’t allow Soviet missiles in Cuba.

The Western affront against Russia started in the mid-1990s when the Clinton administration began pushing for the enlargement of NATO. They began by bringing the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland into NATO in 1999. They continued in 2004 by adding Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Russia always complained. However, apart from the little Baltic states, none of the admitted new NATO members shared a border with Russia, so it was not threatened much.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and (former) U.S. President Joe Biden shake hands as (former) British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and (former) NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg attend a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine council, in Vilnius, Lithuania, July 12, 2023.

In continuous provocation, the West dug deeper East, considering adding Georgia and Ukraine in 2008. At the time, even France and Germany stood opposed to the move, emphasising it would antagonise Russia. But the USA supported it. NATO members agreed to declare that Georgia and Ukraine “… will become members of NATO.”

In response, Russia’s deputy foreign minister at the time, Alexander Gruhko, warned that “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security.” A Russian newspaper at the time also reported that Putin candidly cautioned George Bush that “… if Ukraine was accepted into NATO, it would cease to exist.”

One cannot find it difficult to comprehend that, for instance, the USA would never allow China to build a military alliance, let alone set up a military base in Canada or Mexico. It wouldn’t even allow Russia to do so 90 miles away in Cuba. Why would they consider it right and rational to form a military alliance with a nation of such strategic importance to Russia? Why would they consider setting up military bases in a country sharing a boarder with Russia?

One of the greatest scholars on USSR-USA relations was the American diplomat and historian George Frost Kennan. As early as 1998, when the West began attempts to expand NATO Eastwards, he warned in an interview that, “Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to hurt the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking …I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely to it and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else… It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then (the NATO expanders) will say that ‘we always told you that is how the Russians are,’ but this is just wrong.”

The following year, in 1997, 50 American foreign policy experts, including the former Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara, wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton stating that “We, the undersigned, believe that the current US-led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability for the following reasons: In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favour reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanise resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the “ins” and the “outs,” foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included…”

I can go on and on, quoting voices of reason from the West challenging US/NATO expansion towards Russia’s orbit of influence. Why are Western leaders foolhardy about diving headfirst into what could potentially cause World War III?

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

The Modern Thucydides Trap: How China’s Rise Challenges American Hegemony

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

The American political scientist, Graham Allison, popularised the concept famously known as the “Thucydides Trap.” This concept suggests that whenever a rising power threatens to displace an established one, the tension often guarantees a conflict will arise (war), unless deliberate efforts are made to avoid it. The concept borrows its name from Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC), who was an Athenian general, politician and historian who lived through the ferocious Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, which, the philosopher Will Durant quips, “Thucydides took part in…and recorded it blow by blow.”

Graham Allison has applied the Thucydides framework to the great-power politics of the 21st Century between China and the United States. He views China as a rapidly ascending power that threatens to displace the United States, which, since 1991, has enjoyed unipolarity following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Due to China’s rapid rise as a powerful contender in world affairs, there is structural stress it is exerting towards the ruling power, i.e., the United States. This stress could build fear and amplify the risk of miscalculation among America’s foreign policy elite, hence increasing the risk of war. China has made significant advancements in various fields of global dominance. It has modernised its military, most recently unveiling a sixth-generation stealth fighter jet, the Chengdu J-36. Since 2014, it has had the world’s biggest economy in PPP, and it continues to grow by leaps and bounds. It has also expanded its global influence, especially in the global south through the BRICS and BRI structures. China is also leading in the world’s most decisive technologies of the future, including robotics, Artificial Intelligence, clean energy, 5G technology, etc.

Whereas America still reigns supreme in maintaining a military reach unparalleled in history, with its cultural influence stamped on the fabric of almost all societies in the world, and having control over global financial systems through its Bretton Woods institutions, China’s rise still presents a serious challenge to its post-World War II primacy.

Whenever such scenarios arise, argues Allison, having studied 16 out of 20 historical cases, accounting for an 80% occurrence rate in the past 500 years, the likely outcome is always a military conflict, unless there are factors that intervene in the rival groups’ diplomatic camps to solve the crisis.

However, across historical time, new variables have emerged in the 21st century, which may change the context in which we understand the Thucydides trap. Unlike any previous period in history, today’s big powers are armed with nuclear arsenals, are highly interdependent on each other economically, and are closely connected digitally, which, fortunately, might make the possibility of a catastrophic all-out war less likely, as it is less rational.

Also, today, unlike yesterday, the possible outcomes of the Thucydides trap are hinged on non-traditional domains, i.e., cyber warfare, ideological competition, etc. Nevertheless, the flashpoints of rivalry between China and the U.S. are apparent in Taiwan, the South China Sea, on trade disputes, etc.

In our time, the Thucydides trap could manifest as a “digital trap.” This is because the great competition of our world is now shaped by technological supremacy, whereby nations seek to dominate each other in Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing, robotics, and other cyber capabilities. Mutual fear between China and the U.S. of losing an edge over the other in the areas mentioned above could instigate “war by other means” through sabotage, espionage, cyber-attacks, etc, which unfortunately might escalate into broader conflicts. If the ruling elites in the two major powers are smart, they could instead encourage joint ventures and mutual dependency to deter aggression. This is possible, as it has been done in regards to the International Space Station, where astronauts from Russia, China, the USA, and other countries mutually work together.

Environmental pressures due to climate change could also catalyse a new dimension of the Thucydides trap in our time. Natural disasters and resource scarcity could intensify China and America’s competition for resources like arable land and rare earth minerals, which are critical for building green technology. On the flip side, since climate change is a global crisis which no nation could single-handedly solve, the two countries could turn this vulnerability into an area of cooperation on global climate initiatives, which would turn the trap into a web of opportunities for collaboration.

However, the structural inevitability of competition does not make war a predetermined outcome. The two countries’ competition can be translated into collaboration, since they are both highly interdependent. China holds over $1 trillion in U.S. debt. America also heavily depends on Chinese industries for manufacturing its products, while at the same time having China as its biggest export market.

In the heat of the Cold War, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet Union and America came close to a nuclear war, they established a direct phone line between the Kremlin and the White House for leaders of both countries to be able to constantly communicate to avoid any scenarios. This might be the time to do the same for U.S.–China relations. Both countries must prioritise regular high-level dialogue to avoid the Thucydides trap. This is in the interest of the entirety of human civilisation.

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

No Reason to Take Trump’s Claims About China’s Purported Violation of the Geneva Talks

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

On 2nd June, China publicly responded for the first time to President Trump’s comments that Beijing was acting contrary to the agreement entered by the two countries in Geneva earlier last month. Beijing’s position was explained by the spokesperson of the country’s Ministry of Commerce (MoC), He Yongqian. Being that the pronouncements by the two parties are contradictory, it can be confusing to establish who has in fact conducted themselves improperly something that the rest of this OP-ED deals with.

To begin with, the language adopted by either administration tells a lot. On one hand, you have the MoC statement which is substantive in its claims and on the other, you have nothing but generic accusations. Specifically, Beijing pointed out that the US had despite the understanding between Secretary Scott Bessent and Vice Premier He Lifeng gone on to restrict the export of artificial intelligence chips and trade in chips with the Republic of China as well as revoking Chinese students visas among other measures. In the case of America however, Trade Representative Jamieson Greer could only afford to say that “United States did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the Chinese are slow rolling their compliance.”

One would have liked to say that Washington is treading carefully in the spirit of diplomacy except for the fact that the same leadership has not been known to act as such in recent months. They did not do so with Ukraine or South Africa so it would be a breakaway from a well-established pattern if they were to act differently in this case all over a sudden. Moreover, away from the fact that there has been no particular clarification on the facts, the rhetoric itself has been combative. In a “truth” that kicked off this whole controversy on Truth Social thus, Mr. Trump directly insinuated that it was to be expected that China would act dishonestly. His very words were; “China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!” If he had a bomb to drop, there is no doubt that he would have proceeded to do so without any hesitation.

But it is also not that the White House is causing upheaval for no reason, it is just that its rationales are petty and selfish to say the least. We know for instance, that the presiding Commander in Chief has been known to apportion blame to an other whenever things do not go his way with China famously occupying this position for most of the time. This time round, Congress has just passed a rather unpopular law which strips essential benefits from a good number of people that voted Republican in the previous elections and so he badly needed a distraction.

Another absurd but very real scenario is that Donald Trump has long portrayed himself as a deal-maker. Unfortunately for him, President Xi’s philosophy contradicts this stance since the Asian politician believes in systems. The result of this as Bert Hofman of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore put it, has been that the Secretary General of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has kept a healthy distance from the trade war and instead encouraged in-line officials to spearhead the negotiation process to the frustration of his American counterpart.

By artificially manufacturing friction hence, the US hopes to catch Xi Jinping’s ear. No wonder, following these developments, USA bureaucrats have been pushing for a call with the CCP head. The irony of course, is that there was one such conversation on 17th January this year the theme of which laid the foundations for the Geneva talks i.e. the very talks that the United States of America is already going back on. Why pretend to care about the future whilst presently acting in bad faith then?

Honestly, this conduct is reflective of the usual bullying from the west that we are now accustomed to. The United States forgets though that the stakes are not in its favour on this one– and, Stephen Olson, a visiting fellow at the Yusof Ishak Institute agrees. By the time it awakens, things might be too little, too late.

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

Trump’s Trade Tariffs: A Gun That Turns On It’s Master

Posted on By Salim Abila Asuman

Image a tariff as a gun: and a man in the U.S. stands tall, calm and composed, with this polished gun in hand. He points it at his rivals, to intimidate, to demand respect, and to bend the room to his will. The barrel sunbeams under the light everyone watches. For a moment power seems to be his.

But then there is a truth about this gun, it is unpredictable. It jams, it misfires and sometimes in the tension of a standoff, it explodes backwards, tearing through the one who dared to wield it.

The U.S. government has recently drawn tariffs like weapons in a duel intended to shield domestic industries and frighten foreign competitors. But it forgets the recoil. Higher consumer prices, retaliatory trade wars, crippled exports, and suppressed supply chains these are the wreckages that fly back and dwell deep into the economy that pulls the trigger of a tariffs.

A tariff can look like strength. It can feel like control but history has shown us time and again that it is a dangerous tool, best admired from a distance because in the wrong hands, or even in the right ones but on the wrong day, it does not just miss the target. It turns and shots the shooter.

In 1930, amidst the Great Depression, the U.S. passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, slapping tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to protect American jobs. Instead, it triggered a global trade war where countries retaliated, international trade collapsed by over 60% and American exports dried up. Far from a rescue plan, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs deepened the catastrophe it was meant to solve.

The U.S. has once more turned to a protectionism and still in the form of tariffs this time aimed at China again it is discovering that economic aggression invites economic retaliation.

The fact is that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods do not hurt China as much as they hurt American shoppers. Several studies including from the Federal Reserve and Independent Economist in the past showed that more than 90% of tariffs costs were passed to U.S. consumers, driving up prices on essentials like electronics, machines, furniture and clothing.

China has responded to U.S. tariffs with its own hitting American agriculture, cars, and manufacturing. Because of this, exports from U.S. farmers and factory towns are going to take a serious hit and some industries are going to face double-digit losses in revenue.

Like most tariffs are, the U.S. tariffs on China are equally a short-term protection for vulnerable industries and shall stifle innovation by removing competitive pressure, instead of modernizing, industries in the U.S. are going to become dependent on political shielding.

Why China stands to win; unlike the U.S. China approaches trade wars with strategic discipline and long-term planning. As the biggest rival to the U.S in global trade, it had long anticipated the imposition of tariffs and other protectionist measures. In response, it began diversifying its trade routes and market dependances.

This strategic partnership included strengthening it’s economic ties in Africa and across parts of Asia regions that offer abundant resources and growing consumer bases and present a viable alternatives to the American market.

Through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Beijin systematically built infrastructure, signed bilateral trade agreements, and invested in significant sectors in Africa and Asia that facilitate smoother trade flows, and as such mitigating the impact of western trade barriers.

This foresight in diversifying its trade portfolio came out of the fact that China had long observed the growing protectionist sentiment in the West. The 2018 U.S. tariffs which targeted over $250 billion worth of Chinese goods, confirmed its anticipation and it began preparing for a shift in global trade dynamics away from American dominance.

For instance, in Ethiopia the Addis-Ababa-Djibouti Railway funded by China links this African nation to the port of Djibouti. This therefore created a corridor that has become a vital artery for Ethiopian exports and Chinese imports.

The Lagos-Ibadan railway, funded by a 41.5 billion loan from Export-Import Bank is also part of it’s effort to secure reliable trade infrastructure and in exchange Nigeria remains a key supplier of crude oil to China.

In 2020, it signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the world’s largest trade pact with 14 Asia-Pacific countries that included Japan, South Korea and ASEAN nations RCEP covers about a third of the world’s population and GDP.

Under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has received over $60 billion to build roads, railways, and to develop Gwadar Port. This initiative provides China with direct access to the Arabian sea while bypassing the Strait of Malacca, a strategic chokepoint often times controlled by the U.S.

Uganda has also significantly benefited from the Belt and Road Initiative since it joined the initiative. specially through major infrastructure and energy projects such as the Karuma and Isimba dams, the Entebbe–Kampala Expressway, the Osukuru Industrial Complex, the Kingfisher Oil Field and the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).These projects have also made Uganda an artery for Uganda exports such as coffee and Chinese imports.

Countries in Africa and Asia that have partnered with China through BRI are likely to weather Trump’s tariffs better than others because their primary trade and infrastructure dependencies are now with China rather than the U.S. By restricting global trade and imposing unilateral tariffs, the U.S is pushing nations further into China’ embrace yet many of these nations were allies or part of the western development networks.

The irony is that Trump’s tariffs meant to punish China may end up punishing the future of America. Countries that once looked to the United States as a beacon of opportunity now see it as unreliable, unpredictable, and disinterested.

History will remember this moment not as China downfall, but as the turning point that confirmed a timeless truth: what does not kill you makes you stronger.

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

US Tariffs Contradicts WTO Rules on Fair Trade and Non Discrimination

Posted on By Ernest Talwana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on By Allawi Ssemanda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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