In a dramatic turn of events after imposing hefty tariffs on Mexico and Canada, President Donald Trump shifted his focus to his long-time adversary: China. The initial punitive measures against North American partners had rattled financial markets, not to mention evoking fears among allies wary of becoming targets themselves. However, when it came to Chinese imports, a modest 10% tariff seemed almost subdued by comparison.
Speculation abounded regarding the motives behind this seemingly softer approach. Analysts pondered whether the influence of Elon Musk, a prominent entrepreneur and supposed ally of Trump, might be a factor. Musk’s considerable business interests in China raised eyebrows, leading some to wonder: were Trump’s decisions being swayed by the interests of one among many, or was this characteristic restraint indicative of a broader strategy?
As history often reveals, the past can act as a predictive lens for future actions—especially in the volatile realm of global trade. During Trump’s first term, my time reporting from Beijing offered a front-row seat to the tumultuous U.S.-China trade war. It was a period marked by reciprocal tariffs that inflicted pain not just on businesses, but also on consumers across both nations. With this recent escalation, would we witness a reawakening of past conflicts?
This week, China voiced its reluctance to engage in further trade hostilities, yet its swift implementation of countermeasures targeted toward American firms told a different story. While confidently asserting their desire for cooperation, one couldn’t help but wonder if there lay within such statements a subtle recognition of opportunity amidst chaos. Could this be a chance for China to assert its influence in ways previously unimagined?
For over seventy years, the United States has championed a “rules-based international order.” This framework established norms surrounding trade practices and territorial sovereignty, concepts many nations adopted following the Second World War. Yet, in a singular spate of weeks, Trump seemed determined to upend this carefully constructed system, perhaps inadvertently handing China the occasion to rewrite the rules in its favor.
China has long sought to shift global emphasis from individual liberties to development rights and economic prosperity. Interestingly, in the midst of this uncertainty, Beijing is positioning itself as a beacon of stability, a “grown-up” amid a world rife with discord. As China assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council this week, its envoy, Fu Cong, boldly proclaimed, “The world is entering a very turbulent period,” advocating for superpower unity on critical global issues such as climate change and artificial intelligence. “There’s no winner in a trade war,” he remarked—a statement that many might perceive as a veiled challenge to Washington.
This raises an intriguing question: Could China stand to gain from the very disruptions Trump’s administration is enacting? With the recent shuttering of USAID, a cornerstone of American global influence, China is poised to polish its own international development credentials. Fu emphasized that through the Belt and Road Initiative, China would strive for “better development” opportunities in the Global South, even in light of setbacks like Panama’s withdrawal from the agreement due to U.S. pressure.
According to Cornell University economist Professor Chris Barrett, the ill-advised withdrawal of aid and disengagement from global pacts like the WHO and Paris Climate Agreement have wounded U.S. relations and goodwill worldwide. “We have scored an own goal,” he stated, suggesting this has left countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, leaning toward partnerships with China over the United States.
It is indeed a precariously shifting landscape. While Trump’s administration flirted with notions of territorial expansion—Greenland, Panama, and even Gaza were tantalizingly mentioned—China might find itself adept at consolidating territorial claims, whether in Bhutan or the contested South China Sea.
Observing this geopolitical chess game, Velina Tchakarova from FACE geopolitical risk consultancy noted, “Trump’s trade maneuvers may accelerate China’s efforts to redefine global order.” With growing alliances like BRICS+—a coalition aimed at countering Western dominance—China is leveraging opportunities that seem to arise in the vacuum left by American disengagement. It’s a calculated attempt to diminish reliance on the U.S. dollar, a currency that commands significant influence yet faces challenges.
But for those looking at China as an alternative stable partner, caution is advised. Isaac Stone Fish, who leads Strategy Risks, warned against blindly interpreting Beijing’s rhetoric. “Governments often misjudge China’s true intentions, mistaking propaganda for policy,” he stated. The notion that China operates with altruistic motives is a dangerous assumption; Beijing prioritizes its own interests above all.
Historically, China has shown it can wield economic coercion when its interests are threatened. The urgent backlash against Australia following calls for an investigation into COVID-19’s origins offers a poignant example. Tariffs on multiple Australian exports came swiftly, illustrating the lengths to which Beijing will go to protect its narrative.
As Trump’s new term unfolds, traditional allies, particularly in Europe, are left grappling with uncertainty about Washington’s future plans. Tchakarova articulated the dilemma: either deepen economic ties with the U.S. or seek limited opportunities through engagement with China. It’s a choice that European leaders must ponder deeply, particularly when China actively works to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its European allies.
At a summit this week, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hinted at a possible thaw in relations with China. Her words, echoing a desire for regained trade ties, must have pleased Beijing, signaling another potential victory just at the outset of Trump’s leadership. Balancing robust economic partnerships with ethical considerations emerges as a daunting task for European leaders, revealing just how complex global diplomacy can be.
As these global dynamics evolve, one cannot help but wonder what lies ahead. Will nations choose cooperation in the shadows of uncertainty, or will the intimacies of national interests ultimately draw them apart? Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring
