Tag: USA

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.

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

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on By Musiime George

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georgemusiime@dwcug.org

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

The New Meaning of ‘Munich’ : After J.D. Vance’s bizarre speech, a word synonymous with appeasement may now signal the voluntary surrender of global hegemony

Posted on By Michael Hirsh

For more than eight decades, the word “Munich” has meant one thing in international relations: a catastrophic policy of appeasement. Now, “Munich” may soon take on a fresh—and possibly even more fraught—meaning: the voluntary surrender of global hegemony.

In a series of remarks leading up to the just-ended Munich Security Conference, senior Trump administration officials—including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—signaled that the United States is substantially retreating from the greatest alliance in history, NATO, and that China and Russia could have what they’ve long sought: a “multipolar world,” in Rubio’s words. This was capped by a blustery, insulting speech in Munich by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance—remarks that some European officials interpreted as “the opening salvo in a trans-Atlantic divorce proceeding,” according to foreign-policy analyst Richard Fontaine.

Rubio, accompanied by President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Waltz, then flew to Saudi Arabia to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov—all without European or Ukrainian participation. The object: to pursue a peace settlement in the Russia-Ukraine war and, as Rubio said Tuesday, to “unlock the door” to “incredible opportunities that exist to partner with the Russians geopolitically.”

Trump even said that he wanted to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin, who faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court over allegations of war crimes, back into what would then once again be the G-8 group of nations.

Astonishingly, Trump later appeared to echo Russian talking points by blaming Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—who complained about being left out of the Russia talks in Saudi Arabia—for starting the war, which was begun by Putin in 2022.

“You should have never started it. You could have made a deal,” Trump told Zelensky in remarks to reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort. And all this is on top of the new tariff war that Trump just launched against the United States’ closest friends in the European Union.

Little of this comes as a complete surprise. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement has been signaling such a shift for months, if not years. And the U.S.-orchestrated global order—which, for most of the past 80 years since World War II, U.S. officials of both political parties fully supported—was starting to fall apart even before Trump began suggesting that he was no longer interested in being leader of the free world.

But by brazenly treating some of Washington’s key allies as adversaries—and its autocratic adversaries as partners—Trump may be administering the death blow to a once-stable world system in which Washington served as overseer of a powerful alliance of democracies. As another Munich attendee, Georgetown University scholar Charles Kupchan, put it to me: “The atmosphere in Munich was that of a funeral.”

How far could the unwinding of the U.S.-led global system go? It’s not yet clear. Moving at breakneck speed, Trump appears to be doing far more damage than expected only a month into office.

Also, one of the messages that Europe took from Vance’s appearance in Munich on Valentine’s Day was not just the decidedly unloving content of his speech—in which the vice president openly embraced far-right European politics while ostensibly defending free speech—but the implicit staying power of that message given Vance’s youth.

Europe can no longer pretend, in other words, that U.S. politics has been briefly hijacked by a 78-year-old huckster (as many of them see Trump) who will soon depart the scene. Vance is just 40 years old and perceived as the heir to the neo-isolationist America First movement (though Trump himself is not quite ready to grant him that title).

And the veep and his MAGA supporters have as little love as Trump does for what they see as an all-too-leftist Europe. The fact that Vance could visit Dachau one day and meet the next day with Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany party (which has been criticized for its connections with openly neo-Nazi groups) —all without betraying any sense of historical irony—suggests that the postwar trans-Atlantic consensus may really be over. It’s noteworthy that Vance’s speech to the same Munich conference a year ago, when he was still a U.S. senator, was titled: “Europe Must Stand on Its Own Two Feet on Defense.”

Indeed, Vance’s bizarre speech on Feb. 14—which had nothing to do with security and everything to do with culture and politics—should probably be seen mainly as an appeal to his MAGA home audience and perhaps the effective start to his 2028 presidential campaign.

“There are folks inside the administration who are simply thrilled to be bringing tears to the eyes of the Europeans,” said one Republican international relations expert familiar with the Trump officials’ thinking, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “There is a lingering anger from Trump’s first term toward the bien-pensant crowd in Brussels who openly criticized Trump’s domestic politics and came out against the Dobbs decision.” (That was the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion.)

Moreover, says this expert, there is an emerging dominance of “restrainers” or realists in the new administration who want to scale down the United States’ global presence. The Defense Department is already developing plans to remove all remaining U.S. troops in Syria, and it will possibly shift some of the troops deployed in Europe to the U.S. southern border, the expert said.

It is striking that even Rubio, once considered a traditional Republican hawk—that is, a stalwart believer in U.S. global hegemony—appears to be surrendering to a new global status quo. In a Jan. 30 interview with conservative pundit Megyn Kelly, Rubio effectively conceded to Russia and China what both nations had long been seeking: that we now live in a multipolar world and that Washington’s unipolar power had merely been “an anomaly.”

“It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multigreat powers in different parts of the planet,” Rubio said.

The problem, however, is that Trump often behaves in ways that suggest that he thinks the United States is still the global hegemon.

“He thinks America’s bargaining position is incredibly strong, that we can get massively better deals at better cost,” said William Wohlforth, an international relations scholar at Dartmouth College. “So that’s not really consistent with this idea of multipolarity,” he added.

It’s fashionable to write that Trump just makes policies up as he goes along, such as his seemingly immoral—and monumentally ahistorical—idea of ridding Gaza of Palestinians and turning it into the “Riviera” of the Middle East. But in fact, Trump has been remarkably consistent in his view that Washington has no business being caretaker to the world—going back to the late 1980s, when as a real-estate magnate, he took out a full-page New York Times ad that said, “The world is laughing at American politicians as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, destined for allies who won’t help.”

In some ways, Trump is a reversion to the pre-World War II norm of Republican geopolitics. In recent weeks, much has been made of the 47th president’s 19th-century approach to power—stemming from his bid for greater hemispheric primacy over Greenland and the Panama Canal, as well as his embrace of the tariff policies similar to those of former President William McKinley.

But he also represents a return to the early-to-mid 20th century Taft Republicanism, named for Sen. Robert Taft. Once known as “Mr. Republican,” Taft fought the New Deal and backed the America First Committee, the pre-World War II version of Trump’s movement. Former President Dwight Eisenhower silenced that isolationist wing of the GOP 70 years ago as the Cold War got underway. Now it seems to be back, redefined as “national conservatism.”

Former President Joe Biden worked hard to restore the U.S. role as the supposed overseer of the global order and portray Trump, and his disruptive first term, as an outlier. But the main message of the 2024 election was that it was Biden, not Trump, who was the interlude from history. The advent of Trump II—and the way that he’s upended Washington and the world order in just a month—shows that history is returning with a vengeance.

The question is, how much of that history will return? Without U.S. leadership, will we revert to the old-style balance-of-power geopolitics that ruled for centuries, including for part of the Cold War, in which weaker powers join together to counterbalance the strong?

Much now depends on the European nations in NATO, many of which are pledging a new independence in the wake of Munich—perhaps even a balancing against what some now see as a rogue U.S. power.

“But they don’t know yet what to do about it,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a research director for the European Council on Foreign Relations. He added: “The extent of their dependence in security, economic, and energy terms on the U.S. means that they are currently almost helpless in the face of a predatory American administration. Even if they now have a broader consensus about the problem, they have little consensus on the solution.”

That became clear on Monday, when French President Emmanuel Macron, in his latest bid to drive Europe toward “strategic autonomy,” called an emergency meeting in Brussels. On the agenda was developing a strategy to protest Washington’s decision to leave European leaders out of the negotiations with Russia. As Politico described it, “Leaders came up with no new joint ideas, squabbled over sending troops to Ukraine, and once again mouthed platitudes on aiding Ukraine and boosting defense spending.”

Many defense experts believe that, even with an all-out effort, it would take more than a decade for European countries to develop the intelligence and logistical capabilities, as well as cross-border defense industries, to come close to replacing the United States.

Moreover, to adapt a saying by the great Scottish economist Adam Smith, there is “a great deal of ruin” in an international system. It takes a long time, in other words, to destroy 80 years of institution building, much less a post-World War II globalized economy still held together by an iron law: Countries must take part in it to prosper. Meanwhile, Russia is badly weakened and drained by its bloody three-year debacle in Ukraine, and China is not close to being on par with either Washington’s power or its alliance system.

Thus, while what we are witnessing is clearly something more than a simple reset of relations—especially with European nations still seething over the rebukes they got from Vance and Hegseth last week—it is also probably something less than a return to a state of nature. Even in a multipolar world, the United States is still the dominant power.

“I don’t see it going all the way back to pure spheres of influence or a balance of power system, in which barriers to territorial conquest are lowered,” said Wohlforth, the Dartmouth scholar. “The U.S. has alliances with countries that possess 70 percent of world GDP. This means that any revisionist power still has to contemplate an unbelievably high cost if it wants to transform the status quo through territorial change.”

Putin has found that out with the loss of hundreds of thousands of troops and a great deal of status since he invaded Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2022. “He’s probably sacrificed 2 percent of his GDP for the next 10 years,” Wohlforth said. “He’s sacrificed modernization and diversity of his export portfolio, and he’s sacrificed his autonomy, since he’s dependent on help from China, Iran, and North Korea. I doubt that other powers [such as China] will want to emulate that experience.”

Some Russia experts believe that if Trump handles relations right, he can actually restabilize Europe and induce Putin to stop where he is with partial control of eastern Ukraine, without further threatening any Central European countries.

“The world is a much more dangerous place when the world’s two leading nuclear powers don’t have a substantive dialogue ongoing, and that’s been true for the last three years,” said Thomas Graham, a Russia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who once worked for U.S. President George W. Bush.

“Restarting the dialogue is extremely important. One reason Russia has welcomed this engagement by the Trump administration is that it validates Russia as a great power. And in a strange way, Russia’s own sense of itself is dependent on recognition from the United States. That is a point of leverage for the United States if you know how to play it.”

Graham believes that Putin only wants to exert direct control over the “Slavic core” of the old Russian empire, including Belarus, parts of Ukraine, and perhaps parts of Kazakhstan. “He’s not interested in the Baltics,” Graham said. “He may want continuing influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia, but he doesn’t want outright control.”

Kupchan, the Georgetown scholar and a specialist in trans-Atlantic relations, agreed in part. “In a sense, what Trump is doing needs to be done. I think a bilateral dialogue between Russia and the United States is overdue,” said Kupchan, who served on President Barack Obama’s National Security Council.

“I just wish they knew what they were doing. They keep giving away the store before the negotiations even begin,” Kupchan added. “And the insults are so unnecessary. To have the vice president of the United States show up and insult his hosts and tell them they need to start dealing with a party that has its roots in National Socialism is outrageous.”

Trump’s approach to China and Asia—and whether the United States will seek to retreat from a possible defense of Taiwan, as Trump has sometimes hinted—remains to be seen.

In the face of Washington’s retreat, the world is clearly returning, to some degree, to the balance of power geopolitics that has reigned since ancient times. What we don’t know yet is what happens when this balance of power is reinforced by nuclear deterrence—and, perhaps, enforced by cyberdeterrence and other new tech threats.

How stable might it be? The next four years will tell.

 

 

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