Tag: Trump

On Keir Starmer’s Visit to China

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

It had been almost eight years since a British Prime Minister had last set foot in Beijing. Keir Starmer’s January 28 visit to China is therefore a pivotal moment that signals a recalibration of UK-China relations, in particular, and British foreign policy generally, especially given the current paradigm shifts Western nations are making in the face of an increasingly fragmented global order. It has now become obvious to middle powers that, in the post-Cold War era, their economic and security concerns may not be permanently and reliably abdicated to the American leadership.

To understand the objective of Starmer’s trip, let’s look at the composition of his delegation to Beijing. Among his nearly 60-member entourage were cultural representatives and business executives from some of Britain’s major corporations, such as HSBC (a British universal bank and financial services group), AstraZeneca (a British-Swedish multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company), and Airbus (a European aerospace corporation). Both the entourage and the timing of the visit speak to economic engagement as Starmer’s primary objective at a time when the Labour government he leads is struggling at home to deliver on its economic growth promises. Whereas there is a trade deficit between the UK’s trade with China – the UK, having long-ceased to be the world’s workshop – in the services sector, the UK enjoys a surplus. This implies that there is a demand in the Chinese market for British services if Britain could leverage its expertise in finance, consulting, and professional services.

However, it is not just economic interests at the table for this visit. The past few years and even months have been frosty in the bilateral relations of the two nations. In the past, there were concerns in the UK over allegations of Chinese espionage. The UK also raised queries on claims that China was supporting Russia in the Ukrainian conflict. And of course, in typical Western fashion, the UK has always contested the way China governs in Hong Kong, claiming there is a crackdown on civil liberties. Two months before Keir Starmer’s visit, Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, had also been a subject of conflict between the two states following his conviction under Hong Kong’s national security law. As such, whereas Starmer may pragmatically focus on prioritising economic opportunities for Britain, the issue of human rights will linger in the background.

In order to show a spirit of good faith, which is key in improving relations, Starmer also approved the construction of a mega Chinese embassy in London ahead of his trip, which is one of the trade-offs taken to reset diplomatic relations between the two countries. This is a good move since, in any negotiation, each party needs to make concessions to build trust.

Keir Starmer’s government has articulated its approach to UK-China relations as characterised by a comprehensive and consistent strategy. This strategy is defined by the compartmentalisation of various aspects of the two countries’ relations in order to separate economic cooperation from the often sticky, contentious political concerns. Nevertheless, it is plausibly expected that there will be domestic opposition in the UK over the traditional points of suspicion and accusations regarding human rights violations, espionage, and related concerns, which other political parties in the UK will exploit to undermine the achievements Starmer’s Labour party is trying to realise.

If we take a broader vantage point of the developments in the global geopolitical arena, we find that Starmer’s context is shared by multiple Western leaders who have recently sought to improve relations with China and proactively reconfigure their ties with Beijing. Among the recent guests in the red dragon’s courtyard were French President Emmanuel Macron, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Clearly, middle powers have established a pattern of hedging their bets with China in the midst of increasing unpredictability and uncertainty about the next move from Trump’s America. China is a much more “what you see is what you get”, stable, reliable trade partner that any country can aspire to have now. There is no need to pay the cost of navigating America’s tariff-punctuated, transactional economic terrain.

The American-dominated world order has been rapidly turning into a system of unilateralism and protection. It is China that has lit the way in championing multilateralism. With World leaders such as Irish Prime Minister Michael Martin, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, and Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo successively paying homage to China since this year began, China has demonstrated its indispensability as a resourceful global economic stability partner. It was therefore not surprising that this would spike tensions with the United States.

With Starmer’s visit, the UK has made a profound diplomatic statement in Beijing. Every country now has to engage China. Isolation would be costly. China is not to be ignored or contained but partnered with. Starmer has acknowledged without stammering that “like it or not, China matters for the UK!” This reflects a pragmatic appreciation of the dynamics of economic interdependence as constituting both vulnerabilities and opportunities that must be carefully negotiated.

Nnanda is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Center.

Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Trump-Putin Alaska Summit; Moscow’s Concerns are Legitimate 

Posted on By Benjamin Musanjufu Kavubu

The latest meeting between President Donald Trump of the United States of America and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation, in what is now known as the Alaska summit, was costly because of the security logistical setup and the backstage diplomatic efforts that saw the event through, but didn’t yield much. The 2025 Alaska summit could be the start of a series of efforts that finally bring a freeze to the situation in Ukraine.

To understand why in the first place Russia initiated its special military operation in Ukraine we have to go back in time, we can even go back a thousand years, but today we shall dwell much on the last three decades, after the break up of the USSR in 1991. The USSR was a formation of a multiple ethnic states, that were called Republics, and Ukraine was one of them. It’s end is considered to be a geopolitical tragedy, and that is the view of the current Russian President.

Russia didn’t wake up and just decide to invade Ukraine in 2022, with no reason. For Moscow the move was very much about offensive realism which is basically the amassing of power and regional dominance because of the prevailing uncertainty and threats of an anarchic international system where survival of a given country is the most important thing. Russia is compelled to seek regional hegemony to ensure it’s safety, according to John Mearsheimer this is supposed to be a constant endvour of strategic miscalculations that will bring about conflict and war at certain points especially when great powers are involved. In this case it’s Russia on one side and the USA and it’s allies on the other.

Since the end of the Cold War three decades ago, Moscow views NATO’s eastward expansion as a real threat to its security, in the last decade and half, the political power centers in Kiev along with Washington and Brussels have been flirting about Ukraine joining the security organization which was a clear Red line for Russia, and they were not going to stand by as their core security interests were being teased. The provocation was an encroachment to Russia’s sphere of influence. It was uncalled for because after the end of the Cold war there is a promise in place that NATO never expands “one inch eastward.”

Russia is in Ukraine to protect the Russian speaking population, its no secret that there are neo-Nazi activities, during the conflict military units have come out with Nazi insignia and flags fighting on the side of Kiev. Russia accuses these groups of persecuting the Russian speaking population in the Donbas regions. The international community which is made up of the West took clear sides when it came to internal divisions within Ukraine, Washington supported Ukrainian speaking people and sidelined the other side an act that exacerbated the situation prompting Russia to come in and take its side.

According to Professor Jeffery Sachs Washington’s disdain for historical and cultural claims of the European plain made it clear that only a military act would make Russia’s point. For example Russia’s ties to Crimea which had been a Russian territory since 1783 and only transferred to the Ukraine Republic under the USSR as a symbolic move aimed at nation building in 1954. These historical nuances that were stubbornly ignored only fired up Russia for war.

For Russia, going to Ukraine is an act of resistance against Western unilateralism and Washington’s blunt imperialism. It’s one of the reasons even those that have taken a neutral position have a soft spot for Moscow. The West has consistently violated international norms from the far East in the case of China and Taiwan, to the Middle East when it comes to Iran, Iraq among others states. Washington thrives in overthrowing governments and while expanding military alliances at the same point ignoring regional powers like Russia, of course any country would react in a self interest manner.

The situation in Ukraine goes back years, it goes beyond 2014, when Russia decided to take back the home of its Black Sea fleet in Crimea, it’s strategic base for its naval power and the adjacent water ways that connects it to global trade. It goes beyond the 3 years of the full scale military operation, even the fall of the Soviet Union was just a flash point of previous centuries. It’s geopolitical and geoeconomic and that’s why it has led to several global shock waves that are being felt even as far here in Uganda. From February of 2022 the world has experienced shifts in alliances, here in Africa there is pressure to align with the West at a time when neutrality is very vital for peace.

Since Ukraine was a major global food basket, the war meant they had to halt agriculture and this has affected the world food security bring about shortages and price hikes, Western sanctions on Russia have had a ripple effect on the world energy markets taking that has resulted into higher fuel prices across the planet. Like any conflict there is a humanitarian and migration issue in Europe and because it’s affecting people with white skin, they have taken priority over others in conflict across the world.

Before this escalation Europe had not faced war at this scale since 1945, a disaster that had engulfed the whole world, that bit had ended and just like then, even this episode can end. If the West was pragmatic they could have avoided this all together. Professor Yanis Varoufakis has always suggested a Good Friday Agreement like mode for the Donbas with shared sovereignty and guarantees for both Russian and Ukraine speakers, he also in the past advocated for a neutral Ukraine under a UN backed treaty that may see peace keepers from countries like the UK and China maintain the agreed Red Lines.

Before 2014 if only the West was wise to halt the NATO expansion which is about buying American weapons, Respecting the Minsk Agreement that promoted the autonomy of the Danbas, if only the Washington through the CIA had avoided overthrowing Yanukovych which was a hostile move towards Russia. If only the West has seriously respected the diplomatic path to address Moscow’s legitimate grievances, the world would have never seen this disaster happening. In the event President Trump in his quest for a Nobel Peace prize managed to get a deal with his Russian counterpart it will be only on the grounds of Russia’s original Reasons for the escalation.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre

 

 

 

 

Trump’s Economic McVeighism: Another Gamble with the Global Economy

Posted on By Musiime George

This month opened in typical Trump-fashion, with Washington imposing blanket tariffs on imports to the US. Following the announcement, markets from New York through Shanghai witnessed severe shockwaves.  Subsequently, the internet was awash with Trump supporters celebrating the effect particularly on the Shanghai and Hong Kong stock markets; praising Trump’s ingenuity. However, a week later, Washington announced a 90-day pause on all tariffs above 10% for imports from all territories except China. Be this as it may, experts have continued to rank Trump’s trade policy as the least friendly in 100 years.

Whereas some commentators argue that the pause was a response please to negotiate, reciprocal tariffs quickly set ‘Trump’s genius move’ and the US economy on a crash course. Moreover, the escalation involving China-the supplier of nearly 40% of American’s imports would mean that: either the 125% tariff gets transferred on to the American consumer or a reliance on alternative sources creates gaps in supply elsewhere. More importantly, the emergent supply deficits would likely create new market opportunities for China while the US risks forfeiting the 1.4 billion strong Chinese market. However, regardless of how this goes, Trump doesn’t seem to have a winning hand, at least not in the short term.

In my opinion, China-US trade tensions are not about China but rather the US’ strong belief in its legitimacy as the sole global power. However, the foundations of this belief ignore the fundamental fact that growth isn’t always infinite or uninterrupted. Indeed, it is for this simple reason that global dominance has always switched hands throughout history. Therefore, from this we can infer that China’s legitimate right to development has always been seen as a threat to this privileged position. Further, this is exacerbated by the US’ deteriorating economic footing seen from a $295 billion trade deficit and close to a trillion dollars of US debt to China. Without the significant progression through time, Trump might have tried the method the British used in 1833 or in 1856 using battleships to enforce “fair trade”; luckily these methods are buried 192 years deep.

The innovation, learning curve theory synergy; China’s engine of growth. Trump during his second state of the nation address in 2019 blamed China of ‘stealing American jobs’ and intellectual property. But in a highly interconnected and interdependent world, how is this to be avoided? Besides, this has always been the way of development. Trailblazers lowering entry barriers for those that follow. History shows that even before Robert fortune went to China disguised as a native to steal the secret of Chinese tea making, corporate espionage was a crucial stage on the path to modernisation. Indeed, Germany would never have replaced Britain as Europe’s industrial power early in the 20th century. Not even the American industrial revolution would have been as successful without both European immigrant capital, skills and knowhow. But more key in China’s rapid growth has been the learning curve theory and innovation; its ability to master cost efficient production.

Away from that, not even the 90-day pause on tariffs on certain countries targeted in Trump’s economic aggression changes the general outlook. In fact, Bloomberg economics projects the general US tariffs to only come down from 27% to about 24%. Despite the three-percentage point reduction, this will still be the highest in 100 years. Moreover, this does not take into account the 125% tariff on China hitherto the source of over 40% of all US imports. However, this can have any or a combination of a number of implications. In one scenario, the tariffs are endured but the products arrive at a much higher price with the America consumer having to bear the burden or, targeted territories seek alternative markets. However, when this happened in 1982 with Japan reducing car exports, the domestic automotive industry produced even less cars making it even harder for the ordinary American to own a car as a result of high prices.

The other possible outcome is that a move is made to readjust supply-chains which might require intensive investment in infrastructure, skills development and new technology in the short to medium term. Some experts are already expressing concerns that it could take decades for America to produce all it needs domestically. In the meantime, this certainly creates a supply deficit. On the other hand, if the US is to source these products from alternative sources, the deficit could potentially emerge elsewhere, likely creating a market opportunity for China given China’s relations with much of the developing world where this deficit is likely to manifest.

Until this point, the discussion has been about China and the US but what does Trump’s economic McVeighism mean for the rest of the world. Normally in such economic conflicts, when a major power faces off with a smaller nation, the outcome is more certain unlike when two major powers face off. In the former, the smaller nation loses badly but in the latter, the whole world suffers.  Moreover, when all other sorts of nations are tossed into the mix, the situation becomes even more complex and could have far reaching consequences. For example, as reciprocal tariff walls sprout in different targeted territories this phenomenon poses a significant threat not just to the US but also to global trade. This situation however seems to isolate the US signalling the potential for serious adversity for the domestic economy.

On the contrary, China has over the recent decades build strong and reliable logistic and infrastructure networks through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) cooperation. In addition, the Chinese have through innovation been able to master efficient production. These combined do not merely mean China’s supply-chains may not require much readjusting but rather making it more of a reorientation. The logistic and infrastructure network and efficient production methods also imply that China will be more ready to capitalize on any supply deficits should they occur, but what does this mean for the US?

White House data as of April 10 indicated that China’s share of total US imports had dropped sharply from 34% to just 13.4%. Moreover, with further hiking of the tariffs to 145%, one can expect this to regress even further. NVIDIA for example expects to take a 5.5 billion hit in charges on account of the limiting chip exports to China the company’s biggest market for AI chips. Indeed, economists concur that besides affecting American companies, consumers will also have to deal with soaring prices as firms pass on some all their extra costs not to mention the loss of jobs as was the case in 2018 when Trump first made this gamble. According to the WTO, the resulting contraction of bilateral trade between the world’s two biggest economies will certainly be felt in many places as well.

What is happening in the world today is a stark reminder of the potential damage that could arise at any time from the unchecked trade powers of the US president. President Trump’s free-range to gamble not just with the US domestic economy but also the entire world economy underscores the urgent need for resilient trade systems that will shield global trade when God’s diplomacy becomes weaponised like it is being used against China, Canada, Mexico and others. Further, whereas China has done significant work in this direction, there is a need for Africa and the global south to do more in this regard. Albeit not being proof against trade uncertainties, relative economic peace can be guaranteed through building resilient regional ecological supply systems that that are self-sufficient to counteract instances of economic McVeighism and bullying from without.

George Musiime is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre.

 

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

Posted on By Abdurahim Ssemanda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Posted on By Alan Collins Mpewo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Trade Tariffs on China and Vietnam Overestimate American Bargaining Power

Posted on By Talwana Ernest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Trump’s 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre 

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

Posted on By Allawi Ssemanda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

Posted on By Benjamin Musanjufu Kavubu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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