❈ ❈ ❈

Trump’s Tariffs vs. China’s Long Game

Imran Khalid

Donald Trump, never one to shy away from a headline-grabbing maneuver, announced on January 21 that he’s mulling a 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports, potentially set to take effect February 1. This latest salvo in the long-simmering trade spat between the world’s two largest economies raises eyebrows and questions in equal measure.

The proposed tariffs, ostensibly aimed at pressuring Beijing into a more U.S.-friendly trade posture, ironically come just as China’s exports, including those to the United States, have recently surged. This trend seems to contradict Trump’s intended goal of curbing Chinese economic influence. During his re-election campaign, Trump upped the ante, threatening tariffs as high as 60 percent on Chinese goods. Such rhetoric fueled an already heated trade war but has yet to yield the intended concessions.

So, are Trump’s tariff threats strategic posturing or simply an effort to reclaim economic leverage? Trump is once again casting China as the central antagonist in America’s economic and social struggles. He has, for instance, accused Beijing of fueling the fentanyl crisis by supplying precursor chemicals to U.S. neighbors, thus framing the addiction epidemic as a consequence of lax border enforcement and international indifference.

The rhetoric didn’t stop there. Trump proposed a steep 25 percent tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada, accusing both countries of enabling illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking into the United States. In tandem, he unveiled plans for an “external revenue service” to centralize collection of tariffs and foreign-derived revenue, signaling his continued belief in tariffs as a lever of economic power.

By late 2024, Chinese exports to U.S. companies had risen 4 percent year-over-year, highlighting Beijing’s resilience in the face of punitive trade measures. Meanwhile, the trade imbalance remains staggering: Chinese exports to the U.S. reached $401 billion in 11 months in 2024, while American goods to China totaled just $131 billion. Trump’s escalating accusations against China, combined with his ambitious tariff strategy, reflect a broader effort to realign global trade, though it remains unclear who will blink first in this high-stakes standoff.

In the chess game of global trade, tariffs are a double-edged sword, and Donald Trump is no stranger to wielding them. His latest proposal to slap tariffs on all Chinese imports promises to target every product imaginable, from everyday essentials to niche industrial goods. Although Trump touts this strategy as a way to protect American interests, the ripple effects could drive inflation higher, leaving U.S. consumers to bear the burden.

Take ship-to-shore cranes, for instance, which are critical to U.S. infrastructure and which are entirely imported from China. A 25 percent tariff on these cranes has already added $131 million in costs to American ports. With no domestic alternatives, industries reliant on such imports find themselves trapped, unable to shift demand or dodge price hikes. It is a harsh reminder that protectionist policies often hit closer to home than intended.

Meanwhile, Beijing appears unfazed. The Belt and Road Initiative and deeper partnerships with BRICS nations are part of a broader strategy to reduce reliance on the U.S. market. As China diversifies its trade network, its willingness to absorb the tariff hit without retaliation seems increasingly unlikely. The question remains: How long can the U.S. sustain this high-stakes trade war before consumers and industries alike demand a new strategy?

As Trump’s trade war escalates, American businesses are caught in an increasingly fraught search for alternatives to Chinese imports. This pursuit, however, is no easy feat. Should the United States extend its tariff policies to key trading partners like the European Union, Canada, or Mexico, import costs from these nations could also skyrocket, creating a ripple effect that leaves few affordable options on the table. Compounding the issue is the already sanctioned Russian market, further narrowing the pool of viable suppliers. During the last tariff bout, levies on Canadian and Mexican steel drove domestic prices for iron and steel products up by as much as 17.7 percent in just eight months.

The result was a zero-sum game for American consumers, who are left with two choices: higher costs or limited access to essential goods. Whether sourced from China or elsewhere, the burden ultimately lands squarely on their shoulders.

Amid rising tensions, China’s economic resilience presents an uncomfortable truth for the United States: the trade war is not turning the tide as intended. China’s broader trade figures are even more telling. December exports shattered records, rising 10.7 percent year-over-year. For all of 2024, Chinese exports totaled an astonishing $3.58 trillion, up nearly 6 percent from 2023. China now has a record trade surplus of $992 billion, a 21 percent leap from the prior year.

China’s surge in trade, although it benefits both economies in the short term, reveals the volatility of a system increasingly beset by competition and discord. The long game is being redefined—and not in Washington’s favor. As Donald Trump prepared for his second inauguration, the White House facilitated a phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping in a carefully orchestrated gesture of diplomacy. Xi expressed hope for a “good start” to the China-U.S. relationship, emphasizing the importance of respecting “each other’s core interests” despite inevitable differences.

For Beijing, the focus appears to remain internal. China seems unfazed by the return of Trump’s mercurial leadership. The state media has adopted a measured tone, reflecting Beijing’s preference for a steady course over reacting to external unpredictability. China’s strategy has been patient and deliberate. Recent interactions suggest a willingness to let Trump make the first move, matching his actions with calculated responses. Although the United States enjoys advantages in many arenas, time favors China. With a four-year timeline limiting Trump’s ambitions, Xi has the luxury of playing the long game.

(Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and columnist on international affairs. His work has been widely published by prestigious international news organizations and publications. Courtesy: Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF), a “Think Tank Without Walls” connecting the research and action of scholars, advocates, and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies.)

❈ ❈ ❈

The U.S. Sees China Through the Dark Mirror of its Own Unbridled Aggression

John Menadue

As China grows and prospers many in the U.S. want us to believe that China will follow the same path that the U.S. itself pursued—global military aggression, the overthrow of numerous governments around the world and persecution of minorities at home. (A repost from February 2023)

But the record so far suggests that China is different.

As former U.S. senior diplomat Chas Freeman in Brown Political Review of 14 March, 2022 put it, China does not have a Monroe Doctrine like the U.S. and does not think and behave like the U.S.

There’s not much evidence of China wanting to replace us. They are displacing us in some spheres because they’re big and growing and successful. Do they want to take on our global dominion and hegemony role? No, but we assert that they do. We posit that China thinks and behaves like us: “We had Manifest Destiny and it took us across the Pacific to the Philippines. Therefore, China must have a Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny in mind.” This is wrong. Things don’t work like that. So I would argue that we have inhaled our own propaganda, and we are living in the appropriately stoned state that that produces. If we have sound policies, we can out-compete anyone. But we’re not looking at sound policies; we’re looking at pulling down our competitor.

The US’ record of aggression

‘Our dangerous ally’ has been addicted to war and violence at home and abroad for centuries. It sees war as a means of holding and if possible enhancing its power and authority. War and the threat of war have been continuing features of U.S. policy.

Apart from brief isolationist periods, the U.S. has been almost always at war.

For over two centuries, the U.S. has subverted and overthrown numerous governments. It has a military and business complex—a state within a state—that depends on war for influence and enrichment. Many of its Generals are out of control with their fear mongering.

The U.S. assumes a moral superiority it denies to others. It is blinded by its own self righteousness. It believes in its ‘exceptionalism’—the ‘chosen people’ with a ‘manifest destiny’.

Often the U.S. leadership looks quite unhinged. It even blamed the Russians for blowing up its own Nord Stream gas pipeline to Europe .

Seymour Hersh points out that ‘America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline’ At the time the White House said that blaming America ‘is false and a complete fiction’. The CIA said ‘this claim (of blaming America) is completely and utterly false’. This pattern of denial is commonplace with most Western media accepting the Washington view as holy writ. The NYT called the destruction of the Pipeline a ‘mystery’. And as usual Australian media then meekly followed along… nothing to see here!

I have drawn attention repeatedly to the risks we run in being “joined at the hip” to a country that is almost always at war. The facts are clear. The U.S. has never had a decade without war. Since its founding in 1776, the U.S. has been at war 93 per cent of the time. These wars have extended from its own hemisphere to the Pacific, to Europe and most recently to the Middle East. The U.S. has launched 201 out of 248 armed conflicts since the end of World War II. In recent decades most of these wars have been unsuccessful. The U.S. maintains 800 military bases or sites around the world, including in Australia. The U.S. has in our region a massive deployment of hardware and troops in Japan, the Republic of Korea and Guam.

The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War. Many foreign leaders were assassinated. In the piece reproduced in this blog The fatal expense of U.S. Imperialism, Professor Jeffrey Sachs said:

The scale of U.S. military operations is remarkable… The U.S. has a long history of using covert and overt means to overthrow governments deemed to be unfriendly to the U.S… Historian John Coatsworth counts 41 cases of successful U.S.-led regime change for an average of one government overthrow by the U.S. every 28 months for centuries.

The overthrow or interference in foreign governments is diverse, including Honduras, Guatemala, Iran, Haiti, Congo, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently, Syria.

And this interference continued with the undermining of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine by the U.S.-backed Maidan coup in 2014. Gorbachev and Reagan agreed that in allowing the reunification of Germany, NATO would not extend eastwards. But with U.S. encouragement, NATO has now provocatively extended right up to the borders of Russia. Not surprisingly, Russia is resisting.

China’s record is different

China has not engaged in military activity outside its borders for 40 years. It does not project military power around the globe like the U.S. China does not have a Monroe Doctrine and shows no interest in one.

China has neither the intent nor the capability to attack Australia or the U.S. for that matter. It does not have a history of military aggression beyond the defence of its own borders. It has only one foreign base in Djibouti, mainly for anti-piracy purposes.

Not surprisingly, China is determined that it must have the military capability to defend its homeland against the U.S. and its allies.

The U.S. would have hysterics if Chinese vessels patrolled off the Californian coast and the Florida Keys. Or if China had B-52 type aircraft based in Mexico!

The U.S. has been responsible for the death and dislocation of tens of millions of people in the Middle East in its so called war on terror, that is war on any country that displeases the U.S.

But our White Man’s Media looks away from U.S. aggression and violence but incessantly finds fault with China in every possible way. Anti China racism runs deep.

China has a large and diverse population in areas such as Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. It has land borders with fourteen other countries. Not surprisingly China focuses on domestic issues and the protection of its borders.

If China was an imperial power, it would have swallowed up defenceless Mongolia long ago, a democratic, mineral rich state on its border which is more than twice the size of Ukraine.

China has neither the intent nor the capability to attack us.

The U.S. believes that China will act aggressively around the world as it has itself over centuries.

It parrots on about a Rules Based International Order but breaks or ignores the rules when it suits like the Law of the Sea, the invasion of Iraq and the occupation of Diego Garcia. It repeatedly rejects countless UN decisions and the ICC on Palestine.

To avoid facing up to its failing society and economy the U.S. wants to attack and cripple its competitor by goading China into war over Taiwan, a province of China.

In WW1, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan we tagged along as loyal colonials. It was almost risk free. There was no real threat to our homeland.

That has now changed as we have progressively ceded our sovereignty to the U.S. It began seriously with Julia Gillard agreeing to Marines in Darwin. That has been followed by Abbott’s Force Posture Agreement in 2014 and more recently B 52s in Tindal, the fusion of our RAN with the U.S. in AUKUS to attack China, to say nothing of the ‘interoperability and interchangeability’ of much of Australian defence forces with the U.S.

Acting as a proxy and spear carrier for the U.S. against China makes us a target for attack for the first time in our history.

Defence Minister Marles is out of his depth in talking about safeguarding our sovereignty. He lacks any sense of curiosity. He has been on the Washington drip feed for too long.

He says that AUKUS ‘would boost Australia’s sovereignty’. Is he serious?

Both Albanese and Marles are following in the footsteps of Morrison and Dutton with it all choreographed by Washington.

Does the Cabinet or Caucus care about what they are doing?

(John Menadue has had a distinguished professional career in the media, public service and airlines. Courtesy: Pearls and Irritations, an Australian platform for the exchange of ideas from a progressive, liberal perspective, with an emphasis on peace and justice.)