Tag: USA

Protect Taiwan Act Escalates Tensions, Interference in China’s Internal Affairs

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

On February 9th, the House of Representatives in Washington passed bill H.R. 1531 a law which if it comes into force will by far be the most extreme action that the United States government has undertaken in as regards to China-Taiwan affairs in a long while.

Also known as the Protect Taiwan Act (PTA), the legislation that was introduced by Representative Frank Lucas stipulates among other things, that in the event that USA determines that certain activities by Beijing threaten “the security or the social or economic system of the people of Taiwan”, it shall acting through the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission etc. take all measures possible to see to it that the perceived antagonist is cut out of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, the Group of Twenty (G20), the Basel Committee on Banking Super-vision, the Bank for International Settlements, the Financial Stability Board, and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors. In other words, if successful, such a move would see China become completely isolated by the international monetary system.

That the United States of America opted to further escalate its Taiwan position without provocation is not surprising as it has in recent years shown that it is capable of crossing redlines that even the least hopeful analysts imagined if one goes back a decade or so. In 2025 for instance, the House increased its security support for the Province of China by more than threefold (from $300 million to $1 billion).

What is concerning instead, is that the modality that H.R 1531 takes is so extreme that it is literally the last step to war. Given the stakes involving Taipei when it comes to technology, anyone looking on should be gravely concerned. The island’s involvement with the manufacturing of computer chips employed in the artificial intelligence industry has brought about what has come to be understood as the “Silicone Shield” making Taiwan a national security issue for Washington.

Further important to underscore is that PTA was by all estimations bipartisan (395 representatives voted in its favour as opposed to the 2 that opposed it). It also arrived in a time when the US is doing all that it can to downplay its already existing obligations both under acceptable geopolitical norms but also in international law when it comes to Taiwan. A September 2025 publication by the Congressional Research Service thus sought to portray “one-China policies”― which is what the US is supposedly involved in― as different from the one-China principle.

This is of course, is a clear bending of history. At least if one looks at the three joint communiques (1971, 1979, and 1982) which are understood to be the bedrock of modern diplomatic relations between the United States and China. Respectively, they provide that; “the U.S. acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan strait maintain that there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China”, that “the government of the USA acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”, and finally that “(USA) has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan”.

Finally, as long as UN Resolution 2758 adopted in October 1971 still takes precedence over any other claim regarding the subject of our inquiry today, the US may do as it pleases albeit its actions will remain contrary to the general assembly instrument. By recognizing the government of the People’s Republic of China “as the only legitimate representative of China”, the United Nations settled once and for all any questions pertaining to whether Taiwan is a sovereign state or not. And because of this, her leadership lost their seat in New York and they have never regained it to date.

To pretend otherwise would be to undermine declarations such as the one on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States (1981) which have reinstated the fact post World War II, when it comes to inter-state relations, the international dispensation is governed by mutual respect.

The US then has two options; either it proceeds to ignore the law whilst being aware of the violations or it does the right thing and tone down. What it cannot do is eat her cake and have it at the same time.

The writer is a reserch 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.

 

US Tariffs Contradicts WTO Rules on Fair Trade and Non Discrimination

Posted on By Talwana Ernest

By Talwana Ernest

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.

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.

 

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 Organization (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 globalization 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 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 

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

Posted on By Shemei Ndawula

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Alan Collins Mpewo

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

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

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

But who loses? Safe it is to state that China is the most measurable fair competitor of the US on quite a number of metrics vis-à-vis the public perception of Russia as worthy enough. Of all measure points, outstanding most is the ‘economy’. China has maintained a consistent economic growth rate, inspire of the shortfalls caused by COVID-19 which disruption only slowed the country’s steady growth, but even then, the growth did not remain static.

Which its growing foreign influence and policies among others wrapped in international export of drivers of the economy, some economists and foreign relations experts predict that a clearer match of the world’s two leading economies might be realized as fast as early 2035. Not so many years from today. The US exports as much into the China market as much as the US relies on China’s labour that informed base establishments by numerous US companies on China mainland to ease its expense burdens while maximizing profits. The US export farmers for example by the end of 2024 showcased fear arising from President Trump’s statements that a projection of about 3.1$ Billion is on the verge of being lost with introduction of new tariffs.

President Xi’s government has maintained its stance on the effect of such tariffs, as undermining global commerce but President Trump maintains his confidence albeit serious warnings of the implications. Interestingly, in a bid to make America great again, America will suffer more. A sharp spike in goods costs is something that cannot be overemphasized. It is expected, interestingly at a time of growing global resentment for US foreign policy perpetuated in the past and those incoming. China is not the major US problem. US rather, is US’s major problem.

As Trump takes leadership, many members of the African Union stand on the hill that the grant of two seats (rotational) to the UN Security Council, and yet cannot vote on resolutions there, although proposal introduced by the US is not enough but an act of alleged continuous US bullying. But China that disagrees with such crumbing comes out as the ‘enemy’ to the US.

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

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

 

America’s 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Who Policices the USA?

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

On 22nd April, 2024, the US Congress with a fore note from the Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken, issued the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for all other countries that are on earth, except itself. It has been a practice it has committed itself into fulfilling since 1977 and not so much can be said as having started with bad intentions. In deed, human rights are a concern supposed to keep every person (individual or artificial) on high attention to either advance, protect or preserve. It’s therefore a commendable practice thus far. Many countries across the globe have its citizens suffering at hands of human rights violators in all forms. Some of these are out of territorial breaches, while others are internally castigated by kinsmen and kinswomen whose jobs it should be to do better. Lives still get lost for example, in many African, Latin America, and the Middle East at hands of both internal and external perpetrators. In unison with the subject reports, this is wrong, and should never be normalised as practice anywhere.

The forewords by Antony Blinken were interesting, especially how they described Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine, versus the description of Israel’s actions in Palestine. Interesting still, the language used to condemn practices by the People’s Republic of China. But while on a look out of a balanced analysis of the report, of all the countries as noted, the US could not bring forth a report on itself and how it’s ‘respecting’ human rights both internally and abroad. So, who polices the US foreign policies? It remains an unsolved question for many years despite many dissenters pointing it out, that while it’s commendable to make focus of other world key players regarding human rights practices, the watch should equally be made on the US, by itself and other state and non-state actors. As noted in the reports’ forewords, it points to major monitoring on states from whom US aid is supplied. That shouldn’t be passed off as a conflicting situation for the recipients, and therefore a compromise on taking equal watch on the donor.

As noted in the report, it coincides with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and at its inception, Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the authors of the UDHR noted, “The destiny of human rights is in the hands of all our citizens in all our communities.” It is an indictment on everyone to take center attention. The US as it did at the time of inception of the UDHR, committed to preserving human rights especially abroad but 2023 was quite an interesting year regarding the US foreign policies and it remains a non shocking scenario that the US couldn’t publish a similar report on itself and its activities. Rather, as many years before, any such statements on global state of affairs come as justification for their actions rather than self condemnation.

2023 was an equally busy year for the US especially in the middle east, and while the Israel-Palestine and Ukraine-Russia conflicts steal the attention for US actions, in similar measure as it maintained focus on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act, and consequential withdraw of funding, Cuba’s regime actions, Nicaragua’s government crackdown on dissent, Russia territorial breach on Ukraine’s border, and much more, the US had a run on Iraq and Syria. For many years now, the middle east has been a military play ground for the US. Many countries have consistently condemned the US involvement in the region’s politics citing instigation of more incitement. Baghdad condemned the strikes by the US on its territory which occasioned deaths and wounding of Iraqi citizens.

Of these attacks in the region since October 7, 2023 since the Israel-Hamas war peaked, there have been reported more than 66 separate attacks in the region. This comes off as though it’s the US so much concerned about stability of the region, using war to being more war. The attacks have been gazetted as warranted and even with the wanton killing of numerous civilians in the region by the US in 2023, it didn’t call for equal urgency to issue a report on its own human rights violations. Much as there are numerous world actors that have consistently showed concern and more especially with the players with valuable commercial interests in the area, not many are willing to raise a finger at the self appointed global police. This happens at a time when the United Nations, a body supposed to be impartial has been spotlighted as running selective interests to the West bloc.

As of April 2024, the US faces internal concerns regarding respecting the freedoms of expression and association that are guaranteed by the first amendment of the country’s constitution. Over 200 students across major Universities have been arrested and more crackdowns are still ongoing on the students protesting Israel’s war actions in Palestine. From the Northeastern University in Boston, to Yale, Columbia, Southern California, and more Universities joining the protests against the ongoing war, many peaceful protestors have been arrested and charged with inciting violence, vandalism, and criminal trespass, accusations many have criticized as unfounded, embarrassing to the national image, and illegal. But just as Anthony Blinken quoted Eleanor Roosevelt, human rights are a concern for all, and it’s only fair that in 2024 and years to come, similar documentation on both triumphs and condemnation be issued against the US by the US as it does annually for other global actors.

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