Trump tariffs and the US-China trade war

Source: Financial Times

President Trump and his loyalists are true believers in the omnipotence of tariffs. They believe such taxes on imports will deliver economic nirvana to Americans. Tariff-jumping companies – both of US parentage and beyond – will return to US shores to jump-start manufacturing and create much-needed jobs, especially for the residents of the American ‘red states’.  Revenues from higher tariffs will fill the coffers of the Treasury enabling Trump to engage in pork-barrelling and funding pro-rich tax cuts.

Trump and his acolytes despise bilateral trade deficits. Such deficits reflect an underlying malaise: tthe rest of the world is allegedly ‘ripping off’ the US. Hence, the idea is to ‘carpet bomb’ hundreds of countries with punitive tariffs with China becoming a particular target of opprobrium. The global effective tariff rate is now the highest in the world since the turn of the 20th century.

While countries such as Vietnam have capitulated by offering to implement zero tariffs on American goods and services, and while some long-term allies, such as Australia, have offered no retaliation, China has taken a different approach. It has engaged in an active trade war with the USA by imposing retaliatory tariffs – see Exhibit 1 – and has announced complementary restrictions on American companies doing business with China.

Exhibit 1

Source: New York Times, 11 April, 2025

Which party will prevail in this clash of two titans of global commerce? To start with, Trump has blinked, despite his asinine proclamation that various countries of the world are prepared to ‘kiss his ass’. (warning: distasteful video content). He has been humbled by developments in global financial and bond markets. Stock market prices have declined sharply in response to the Trump tariffs. More importantly, one detects a restive bond market with returns on long-term US Treasury bonds rising sharply to 5 percent.

This has ominous implications for US borrowing costs as well as the cost of financing sovereign bonds in other parts of the world. Trump was forced to engage in strategic retreat by imposing a ’90 day’ pause on tariffs worldwide with the conspicuous exception of China. But…the Chinese authorities must have noted, in common with others across the world, that Trump’s seemingly invincible aura has been tarnished.  

Furthermore, many of the supposed benefits of the Trump tariffs represent wishful thinking rather than a pragmatic assessment of likely outcomes. Thus, the idea of tariff-jumping companies relocating to the USA is far-fetched, given that this is a process that takes time and relies on a predictable tariff regime. Trump has shown that the trajectory of tariffs under his regime will be highly erratic shifting with shifting economic and political circumstances.

The notion that tariffs will yield a revenue bonanza for the US government also ignores empirical regularities. Many decades ago, economist Arthur Laffer discovered the Laffer curve on the tax-revenue relationship: very low taxes lead to very low revenue collection, but very high taxes also have the same result. The Laffer curve is valid for the tariff-revenue relationship as well. At current prohibitive rates, the Trump tariffs are unlikely to yield a revenue bonanza – see Exhibit 2 – as the ‘volume effect’ of import compression will more than likely offset the ‘value effect’ of higher import duties.

Exhibit 2

Source: https://asiatimes.com/2025/03/tariffs-have-a-laffer-curve-too/

Once again, the Chinese authorities are likely to conclude that the incidence of the Laffer curve will prevent the Trump administration from building a war chest that it can draw on in its trade war with China.

Other factors at play put China at a strategic advantage vis-a-vis the USA.

China is no longer a country populated by ‘peasants’ as the American Vice President JD Vance would like to believe. It is now at the forefront of new technologies, ranging across renewable energy, electric cars, robotics, and AI. It no longer relies on cheap imports flooding the US market. Thus, China has undertaken both product and market diversification of its exports. In any case, China has a vast domestic market in which consumption growth is now the highest in the world led by millions of millenials – see Exhibit 3a. This deflates the oft-noted view that the overly centralized Chinese economic system over-invests and under-consumes. China is certainly politically centralized, but this is combined with a radically decentralized economic system that operates at the mayoral level. This is the ‘new China playbook’. (see Exhibit 3b)

Exhibit 3a and 3bConsumption growth and the new China playbook

China also has a tight grip on rare earth minerals that are critical to the US tech and defense industries. One must not forget too that Elon Musk – the richest man in the world and one of Trump’s main supporters – has heavily invested in China to produce and export Tesla EVs. China, if it really wanted to be mean-spirited, could exploit these US-specific vulnerabilities.

China, as Mahbubani often points out, is the ‘oldest continuous civilization’. Deeply held notions of national humiliation by Western powers in the past (1840-1949) have shaped China’s outlook on contemporary international relations. A civilization is unlikely to be upstaged by an upstart Western power.

One should not, of course, paint a rosy picture in which China wins, and the USA loses in this trade war. Both countries will have bloody noses and will suffer a great deal of pain, as the Yale Budget Lab points out. Other model-driven estimates suggest that the USA will suffer more socio-economic losses relative to China – see Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 4

A US-China trade war will unfortunately impose considerable collateral damage to the rest of the world. Low- and middle-income countries are likely to suffer the most and will become the victims of this US-led, self-inflicted damage to a rules-based global trading system. Even worse, the putative trade war could lead to a catastrophic conflict on a global scale.

US and Europe: the end of the transatlantic alliance as we know it?

The newly appointed US secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, made his inaugural speech to NATO and European allies at a Defence Ministerial on February 12. As a Trump loyalist, he conveyed his forthright message to an august audience. His speech was received in stony silence by grim-faced European officials and politicians.

Exhibit 1: Hegseth speaks to NATO allies…

His proclamations portend a major rupture in the transatlantic alliance that has endured since the 1950s. Thus:

  • European security should be the sole responsibility of Europe
  • Rich European countries should not expect the US to continue to act as Europe’s security guarantor through NATO
  • These countries should aim to spend 5% of GDP on defence even if the US does not.
  • The priorities of USA lay in Asia and in securing its own borders against millions of illegal migrants seeking to enter the USA from South America.

Perhaps the most conspicuous statements by Hegseth pertained to the way the US perceives the future of Ukraine.

Thus:

  • It is unrealistic to expect Ukraine – and Europe at large – to return to ‘pre-2014 borders’, that is, Russia can expect to retain Crimea and probably the vast bulk of Ukrainian territory that it has acquired since the Russo-Ukraine war that started on February 24, 2022
  • It is unrealistic to expect Ukraine to become a member of NATO.
  • Any ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine would have to be monitored by European and non-European troops – but not NATO and certainly not by the USA.

There were understandably adverse reactions from Europe, although the British Defence Minister, evoking the long-standing British tradition of understatement, simply said to Hegseth, ‘we hear you’.

President Zelenskyy was clearly crestfallen but put on a brave face. This did not restrain the editor of the Kyiv Post from lamenting that God Bless ‘America,’ but God Help Ukraine and Europe Fend for Themselves!

European and Ukrainian fears were exacerbated when Trump held a telephone discussion for 90 minutes with Putin. Both leaders agreed that they should meet at a summit in Saudi Arabia where they would finalize the contours of a ceasefire plan that clearly favoured Russia. The embattled Zelenskyy was given a consolation prize by receiving Trump’s post-Putin courtesy phone call.

Exhibit 2: Trump and Putin talkfest

Trump sought from Ukraine a formal agreement to gain preferential access to its rich mineral deposits which he saw as richly deserved compensation for the billions that the USA poured into Ukraine to fight Russia.

Trump also noted that Putin was right to raise concerns about Ukraine not joining NATO as far back as 2007. He felt that Russia should be part of the G7.

Russo-phobic European leaders were apoplectic but there was little that they could do to stop the Trump juggernaut on the ‘America First’ foreign policy that was taking shape in front of their disbelieving eyes. What happened, they wondered, to commitments by the previous US administration that said that Ukraine was on an ‘irreversible’ path to NATO membership? What happened to Biden’s promise that Ukraine would receive its unconditional support and poured billions into sustaining its proxy war against Russia even during the dying days of his administration?

The US Vice President, JD Vance, went even further than Trump and Hegseth. He noted that an enormous and probably unbridgeable chasm has opened between Europe and USA. It was a clash of views and values about the world at large. Unless centrist politicians in the region respected views and voices of American, MAGA-inspired nationalism in Europe, America had nothing to do with Europe. To Vance and fellow travellers, the far-right AfD in Germany was worthy of an audience but not Olaf Scholz, the beleaguered German chancellor. He and his entourage did not even bother to listen to speeches by French President Macron and the EU president Ursula Von der Leyen.

Exhibit 3: Vance issues a stern lecture to European leaders….

It is remarkable that, in the space of a few days, the Trump administration appears to have reconfigured the basic tenets of the transatlantic alliance that was consolidated during the Cold War. It is pathetic to watch Zelenskyy take on the mantle of European leadership. He made the delusional proclamation of forming a formidable European army in which Ukraine would play a pivotal role to deter Russian aggression in the absence of any tangible support from USA.

The harsh reality is that the European leaders allowed themselves to become subservient to the US and simply followed the Russo phobic policy of previous US administrations that reached its zenith under Biden. They tried hard to cling to the fantasy that Russia really does not belong to Europe and that it ought to be isolated and defeated diplomatically economically and militarily even if it means pouring billions into broken nation like Ukraine – billions that could have been spent on the welfare of European citizens. Along comes someone like Trump and ruptures such a fantasy.

Democracy promotion, regime change and US foreign policy: The case of Bangladesh

On August 5, 2024, a student-led movement toppled Sheikh Hasina’s deeply entrenched authoritarian regime. The redoubtable Economist magazine voted Bangladesh ‘the country of the year’ (2024) because students led a movement that ‘toppled a tyrant’ and paved the way for a brighter future.

Do the student leaders really deserve such praise, or was there the not-so-hidden hand of external forces?

It is reasonable to argue that the legitimacy of a home-grown pro-democracy movement is impaired when it is co-opted by powerful external actors whose geopolitical considerations might not be aligned with a country’s national interest.

The Economist is silent on this issue, and there is hardly any national debate on this vexed question, perhaps because the media is still not free in the post-Hasina era.

The prime suspect that aided and abetted the expulsion of the Hasina regime is the USA.  This proposition is supported by a combination of historical records and circumstantial evidence.

To find out more, follow this link:

Democracy and the West – giving James Bond 007 licence to kill?

Democracy and the West – giving James Bond 007 licence to kill?

By

Aunul Islam

Aunul Islam, read for his PhD at Imperial College, London. He graduated from The University of Manchester. He is a Quality Assurance Specialist in Higher Education and a Technology Consultant. He is an ex-civil servant of the UK government. A keen gardener, he finds solace through nature in this dysfunctional world orde

Exhibit 1

Source: bing.com

Have we really understood what has democracy given us? Let us revisit the basic meaning of democracy.

The word’s etymology is derived from Greek, “demos” meaning “people” and “Kratos” meaning “power.”

Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly governed by the people.

It is also often referred to as the “rule of majority. There have been multiple ways in which democracy has been defined and described.

The present dysfunctional democratic governance of powerful Western countries that we are witnessing made me reflect on democracy through the understanding of a writer and his films that followed: the James Bond film, entitled  “Licence to kill”, which resonates with the present democratic world order.

I will briefly narrate the basis of Ian Fleming’s book and associated films and finally discuss how they relate to the so-called new democratic world order.

James Bond, bearing the unique code 007, is a secret service agent of a democratic British Government, with other important characters like Q and M, which are code names in the actual British secret service. Where necessary, 007 has the licence to eliminate enemies within his own country and worldwide.

If we believe in a true democracy, and there are many variants of this, the UK parliament is in no way similar to the USA system nor they are to the European one with proportional representation.  A mere popular vote of 30% may take a political party in a ruling position and thus it is not the majority. So, any major decision taken for its own citizens is not truly democratic. To make things worse in governance, the cabinet in the UK makes the decision. The fallacy is having an autocratic leader ( Tony Blair, Boris Johnson, etc) bulldoze a decision detrimental to society and make a mockery of democracy.  The worst scenario is the “license to kill” in an overseas country if they feel that they are “undemocratic” or do not align with their beliefs and strategies.

Many examples of undemocratic intervention, even bypassing the UN, abound. A glaring example is the invasion of Iraq.  The genocide in Gaza by the so-called democratic State of Israel is the latest egregious example of licence to kill. The list goes on. Democracy and double standards are in conspicuous display. One is witnessing millions being slaughtered, killed and maimed around the world, where USA, the leading democratic nation, felt it “necessary” and others are complicit by means of abhorrent participation either directly or indirectly.

Exhibit 2: an iconic image from the invasion of Iraq 2003 by US and its allies

Source: Al Jazeera

Exhibit 3 Democratic’ Israel creates the ruins of Gaza

Source: The Independent

As we dawn into the year 2025, it is painful to envision a world led by democratic countries and their governance beyond its own borders, where the 007, the M and Qs are the agents of destruction in a world full of ever-growing conflict!

K-drama – saga in the South Korean parliament

By

Aunul Islam

Aunul Islam, read for his PhD at Imperial College, London. He graduated from The University of Manchester. He is a Quality Assurance Specialist in Higher Education and a Technology Consultant. He is an ex-civil servant of the UK government. A keen gardener, he finds solace through nature in this dysfunctional world order.

The drama that took place in the recent Korean parliament on 4th of December 2024 as martial law was declared by President Yoon ended, to echo T.S. Eliot, in a whimper.

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

The so-called martial law in South Korea lasted a mere six hours. It reminds me of a K-drama, “crash landing on you.”  

This is a romantic story between two Koreas. Why trivialise a potentially grave political event by trying to interpret it through the lens of a very popular k- drama?

Sometimes dramas carry a larger message than one gives them credit. Many have analysed this event from various angles – see, for example, BBC news,4th December 2024, Laura Bicker, reporting from Seoul.

Source: BBC, President Yoon Suk Yeol faces impeachment vote after martial law backlash – BBC News

Let us go back in history. Do you remember the unification of Germany?  The two have a common factor. East Germany was a communist bloc and here, the North in case of Korea.

Was the drama (Crash Landing) fantasising on the unification of both Koreas?

West Germany gained a lot by the unification, with a dedicated and skilled workforce with a different socio-working ethos. The unification was a boon for the West as strategically it gained a large work force while at the same time neutralising the threat of Communism from the East.

Let us revisit the K-drama, “crash landing on you”, to briefly analyse the saga that unfolded in the Korean parliament. A rich woman from Gangham (which also reminds me of the very popular song Gangham style) in Seoul, whilst paragliding and by a freak accident landed in the military border town of North Korea. The drama was portrayed in a politically correct and balanced way as it appeared that the writer did not want to generally demean the North Koreans. I also feel it had the blessings of The Ministry of Unification a government body responsible for all issues on inter-Korean relations. The ministry’s existence reflects the unique reality of the Korean peninsula, which has remained divided since the end of the Korean War in 1953.

The drama showed impoverished and poor living conditions in the military border town of North Korea, but it portrayed the people as resolute and proud of their communism.

What has happened in the South Korean parliament has convinced me to look at contemporary political developments in that country through the prism of K-drama.

There are many who dream of a united Korea and of course many are against it. Recently the Korean Won has devalued, and the golden period of capitalism is perhaps no longer that bright. Against this backdrop, the present government wanted a scapegoat, and the influence of North Korea had to be blamed. Although democracy prevailed and the martial law failed to materialise, it does not necessarily augur well for the future of South Korea.

Will we see a unification of the Koreas like Germany in the future?