Trump Trade War Update

Four Global Times Items

China’s answer to the question in the image would be that there are no winners in a trade war. The answer has some truth to it, but reality indicates it’s Trump and the Outlaw US Empire that’s losing, which IMO was predictable at the outset. Today’s Global Times provides four reports that provide an update to the current situation, take a look at what came before, and conclude with the new situation the world is facing. The latest moves by Trump attack China’s shipping industry and its logistical support as the first report details:

Multiple Chinese industry associations oppose US restrictions on China’s maritime, logistics, shipbuilding sectors:

Multiple Chinese industry associations issued stern statements on Saturday opposing the US Trade Representative (USTR)'s Section 301 action targeting China's maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors, echoing the firm opposition expressed by the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) on Friday.

The China Federation of Logistics & Purchasing (CFLP) criticized the US restrictions, urging the US to abide by market principles and multilateral trading rules, and correct its actions. The association argued that the US' unilateral and protectionist stance undermines the multilateral trading system and international trade rules.

These US measures negatively impact logistics firms, shipowners, cargo owners, importers, exporters, and consumers in both countries, CFLP said in its statement, warning that such actions could harm China-US economic and trade relations, may further increase international logistics costs, disrupt global industrial and supply chains, and threaten global economic development.

The China Association of National Shipbuilding Industry (CANSI) on Saturday voiced strong opposition to US restrictions. The association criticized the US for unjustly cracking down on China's shipbuilding industry with baseless accusations and flawed investigations, noting that this constitutes a violation of international trade rules and significantly undermines the collaborative development of the global maritime industry.

The US restrictions on China's shipbuilding sector will inevitably disrupt the global maritime industry. This move will not aid the recovery of the US shipbuilding sector but will instead directly push up international shipping costs, exacerbate the domestic inflation crisis, and harm the basic living standards of the American people, the association said on its WeChat account.

The China Shipowners' Association (CSA) strongly opposes and protests the US' restrictions. The association rejected the US' unfounded accusations, which it says are based on incorrect information and bias, and denounced the misuse of protectionist measures that disrupt the global shipping market.

The CSA urged the US to stop investigations and actions driven by political bias, rescind all discriminatory measures, and genuinely abide by international trade rules and market principles. It calls for an end to actions that could seriously harm the normal development of the global maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors, according to the release.

In response to the USTR's Section 301 action, MOFCOM said on Friday that China strongly deplores and opposes the US move.

The US action is a typical example of non-market behavior with discriminatory overtones, the ministry spokesperson said, adding that China will closely monitor the situation and take firm measures to safeguard its own rights and interests. [My Emphasis]

As noted previously, these idiotic acts by Trump will do nothing to help reconstitute the Empire’s shipbuilding industry and will only lower the living standards of US citizens by driving inflation and killing jobs—essentially recreating stagflation. As the next report shows, Trump has been forced to alter some of his initial actions because they didn’t have the anticipated outcomes:

US reportedly may form task force to handle China tariff impact; move shows counterproductive effect of tariff bully: expert:

US government officials, anticipating supply chain strains due to steep tariffs on Chinese goods, have discussed forming a working group to deal with the problems with urgency if there's no breakthrough with Beijing, CBS News reported on Friday US time, citing multiple sources.

The reported tariff-related move by the US government showed it has moved from frequent and inconsistent adjustments of tariffs to the pressing need for a working group to tackle potential supply chain problems, which is a typical self-made predicament and counterproductive approach, a Chinese expert said.

While not finalized, the working group would likely include Vice President J.D. Vance, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Stephen Miran, and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, according to the report, citing sources.

The US administration has already been working on supply chain issues for some time in anticipation of the imposition of the tariffs. Medicines, semiconductors, electronic devices and critical minerals could face supply pressure after the White House and Beijing imposed a series of retaliatory tariffs, according to CBS.

The US government has recently made rounds of tariff hikes primarily targeting China. On April 2, it announced sweeping "reciprocal tariffs" on all its major trading partners.

But on April 9, it announced a 90-day pause on its "reciprocal" tariffs for most countries, excluding China, which continues to face a combined US tariff rate of up to 145 percent on its exports.

On Tuesday, the White House said that Chinese exports to the US could face tariffs of up to 245 percent.

The recent tariff-related moves by the US government have evolved from frequent and inconsistent adjustments to the necessity of establishing an emergency task force to address the situation. This clearly reveals that the government is creating its own problems and finding itself in a passive predicament, akin to shooting itself in the foot, Gao Lingyun, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, told the Global Times on Saturday.

In response to each round of US escalation, China has issued swift and legitimate countermeasures. On April 4, China announced a series of moves including a 34-percent additional tariff on all US imports.

On April 9, the Tariff Commission of the State Council announced that the additional tariff rate on US goods would be raised from 34 to 84 percent.

On April 11, the Tariff Commission of the State Council announced another increase, raising the additional tariff rate on US goods from 84 to 125 percent, as a countermeasure.

In response to the US tariff bullying and threats, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has responded multiple times, reaffirming its firm stance.

In response to the White House's claim that China is facing up to a 245 percent tariff on Chinese goods "as a result of its retaliatory actions," a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said on Thursday that the US' extortionate tariff hikes on China have become a numbers game, which economically does not make much actual difference anymore, except further demonstrating how the US weaponizes tariff to coerce and bully others.

Tariff and trade wars have no winners. China does not want to fight those wars but neither are we afraid of them. If the US continues to play this numbers game with tariffs, it will simply be ignored. But if the US continues to inflict actual damage on China's rights and interests, China will respond with resolute countermeasures and will stand our ground to the end, the spokesperson said.

From the outset, the US' extreme pressure exerted on China has consistently failed to achieve its intended goals. Now, the negative impact on the US' domestic economy and the challenges it faces have become increasingly evident, highlighting an urgent need for resolution. This process clearly illustrates the counterproductive effects of the US' tariff bully, Gao noted. [My Emphasis]

I must admit the composition of the proposed working group consists of clowns having no real understanding of what they’re doing. CBS also did a poor job of reporting the actual status of the tariff and embargo situation. President Xi’s recent state visits to three key ASEAN members to promote solidarity and strengthen all trade logistics was deemed a success. It must be mentioned that China built its supply chains in anticipation of their being attacked by the Outlaw US Empire, which is why so few dislocations have occurred. China is well aware of the history of Empires using tariffs to subjugate rivals some of which is reviewed by the next report:

Replaying 19th century tariff wars to restore American dominance is an illusion:

History seldom repeats itself in detail, yet the echoes are often hauntingly familiar. Let's begin not with the global headlines of tariff threats and decoupling but with the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

Back then, Indian textiles, such as fine muslin and printed cotton, were defined as "Made in the East." Their reputation traversed oceans, captivating Europe's elite and gracing the wardrobes of the British aristocracy.

India's textiles were not just beautiful objects; they symbolized the subcontinent's sophisticated manufacturing and economic might. But the storm was coming when the complex calculus of Empire took hold.

Britain's textile factories churned into life as the Industrial Revolution gained momentum. Yet, British textiles struggled to compete with India's hand-made marvels. London's response was swift and decisive but ruthless in its design. The British government imposed prohibitive tariffs on Indian cotton goods and, in some instances, outright banned their import into Britain. Simultaneously, it opened the gates for British machine-made textiles to flood the vast Indian market, free from duties with its system under the control of the Empire.

Little by little, India's artisans—the pride of generations—were caught in a vice. Denied access to affordable raw cotton and squeezed by aggressive British imports, many went out of business, forced by circumstance to abandon their crafts for lives of rural poverty.

This was not the invisible hand of "market forces" at work. It was the mailed fist of Empire. Redcoats and warships enforced Britain's economic policy, and resistance was harshly crushed when it arose. India had no power to rewrite the rules imposed upon it.

Under the guise of "rule of law" and "free trade," the Empire dictated a game whose outcome was preordained. As historians now call it, "deindustrialization:" one of the earliest and most devastating in history, where a vibrant economy was forcibly reduced to a supplier of raw materials and a captive market for foreign manufactured goods.

Fast-forward to the present. At the height of its global influence, the US finds itself uneasy in the face of a resurgent China--the world's leading manufacturing nation whose products are woven into the fabric of the global economy.

In response, Washington has launched an unprecedented trade war, wielding tariffs in hopes of slowing or even crippling the growth of Chinese manufacturing.

Some Washington policymakers seem convinced that imposing steep tariffs on Chinese goods and restricting technology transfer can restore American manufacturing to its former primacy.

Through punitive measures, they hope to reclaim the unchallenged leadership their predecessors once knew. However, the world of today is not that of yesteryear.

It is vital to remember how radically the landscape has changed. The Britain in 19th century could only force its vision upon India because it wielded overwhelming military and colonial power; the India of that era had no say in its fate.

Contemporary China, by contrast, is a sovereign country, an indispensable link in the global supply chain and a major driver of technological progress.

The intricate web of globalization now binds economies together in ways unimaginable even a generation ago. China and the US are not two players on opposite ends of a see-saw but partners, competitors, and co-dependents in a vast, shared ecosystem.

Washington's embrace of a zero-sum approach—the notion that American renewal requires the deliberate weakening of Chinese manufacturing--reveals a mindset rooted in imperial nostalgia.

Replaying the tariff wars of the 19th century could restore the status quo of American dominance. But this, too, is an illusion.

The privileges of historic empires cannot be restored simply by presidential decree or trade policy crafted in committee rooms. The world's realities—technology, sovereignty, and interdependence--require a new story.

History is not a script to be replayed but a mirror—a means to understand how far we have come and how much we must change. It is time to look forward, not backward, and to seek a future where open cooperation, not imperial nostalgia or zero-sum rule, defines our place in the world. [My Emphasis]

I’m sure some readers didn’t know about the South Asian textile prowess that England destroyed, and that Ghandi’s weaving his own cloth and clothing now makes sense because of that history. That the English and their American offspring behave like outlaws is rooted in their Imperialism, although what they’ve done with it differs because the historical context changed. It appears the goal today is to establish Fair Trade, which we might call a regulated Free Trade with the WTO existing as the regulating agency. The complex system of global supply chains the Outlaw US Empire now wants to unravel was woven by the demands of Western Industrial Capitalism and now serve the interests of Global Industrial Capitalism, which means they’re very unlikely to be undone—modified, but not done away with. That’s the reality Trump and team can’t seem to fathom likely because their goal isn’t MAGA—to rebuild America’s industrial manufacturing base—because it would need to rely on the globalized supply chain. This question’s thus begged: What really resides at the root of Trump’s Trade War against China? IMO, Sinophobia.

The reality that Global Industrial Capitalism (GIC) exists introduces us to the basis for the next report that GIC can also be expressed as Multipolar Globalization:

Globalization isn't over; it's just beginning:

Today, amid the tariff war, we witness the emergence of throwaway lines about the "end of globalization." If we mean globalization defined by the dominance of the transatlantic economies, then that happened some time ago. Some have leaped on the notion of the "end of globalization," but the evidence suggests that something else is happening.

Rather, we now have the end of "globalization with Western characteristics," and the beginning of "globalization with multipolar characteristics." It is a new chapter of globalization in which the US and the Western powers are decentered. But it is not a retreat into a state of autarky, though perhaps it could be argued that the current spate of tariffs issued by Washington speaks to a temporary retreat of the US from intensified global interactions.

Globalization with multipolar characteristics is one of intensified international relations through ongoing and expanded trade (with or without the US), growing capital flows via diversified sources, and a network of multipolar institutions at regional and sub-regional levels providing economic and security governance architecture. The tariff war, initiated by the current US administration, creates the conditions in which this form of multipolar globalization is accelerated. The cornerstone of this unfolding phase of international interactions will be intensified cooperation.

China's growth as a global manufacturing superpower and major trading partner for over 150 nations is the preeminent feature of today's globalization. Its economic linkages and overall heft create ballast when the global economic system has been disrupted as it has been, and its institutional steady-hand acts as an enabling focal point for nations to coordinate their actions. China can and should continue to open its market to others, providing alternative opportunities for enterprises around the world.

Globalization with multipolar characteristics can be enhanced and accelerated through a focus on the following initiatives.

In terms of trade, nations need to remain committed to the World Trade Organization and subordinate regional multilateral and bilateral arrangements and agreements. These institutions need reform to ensure they are suited to modern times, but are foundational to the multilateral trading arrangements that have benefited the world for many decades. Additionally, committing to these institutions demonstrates that countries are "good for their word" and that for them, agreements matter and are dependable. This is crucial in an environment where capricious actions undermine trust in counterparties.

Furthermore, nations need to focus on expanding trade cooperation. This means coordinating their actions domestically to optimize supply chain alignments, and ensuring that trade delivers mutual benefits and meets the development aspirations of participants. With short-term trade disruptions occasioned by tariff-based uncertainties, coordinated fiscal measures can be mobilized to provide a consistent compensatory boost to demand as the US market becomes less dependable.

Trade can also be boosted through ongoing work to enhance transnational digital standards for supply chain data. This provides regulatory agencies, such as customs, with transparent, dependable data on trade consignments enabling fast-tracked processing, and buyers and their financial stakeholders with streamlined data-enabled payments and settlements.

Facilitating trade growth must also go hand-in-hand with enhancing capital flows to support the development of the global south. Financing development via the traditional post-Bretton Woods institutions of the World Bank and IMF has largely failed to alleviate global under-development. These institutions need to be reformed so that the voices of the Global South can more effectively be heard. At the same time, new national currency-based development financing institutions are needed to enable the mobilization of critical human capabilities and technologies to tackle historic uneven development and dependency. The New Development Bank established by BRICS countries, and other multilateral financial institutions such as the Asia Development Bank among others, can be propelled to take on greater responsibility in financing development.

Lastly, globalization with multipolar characteristics needs security institutions that are focused on indivisible security and the security of all, rather than on institutions that frame the world in zero-sum security games. A United Nations true to its founding charter is worth working collaboratively towards, rather than being jettisoned in haste. The principles championed by China in its five principles of peaceful co-existence, as well as those advocated by the Bandung conference of the non-aligned movement, can be marshaled to provide a focal point for a new style of governance and statecraft.

"Globalization with Western characteristics" may well be coming to an end. However, with concerted efforts to intensify coordination and collaboration, the benefits of "globalization with multipolar characteristics" can be better shared across the globe. [My Emphasis]

As the author notes, “The tariff war, initiated by the current US administration, creates the conditions in which this form of multipolar globalization is accelerated.” This affirms what many have observed—that Team Trump failed to think things through regarding this policy or that the announced policy goal was false from the outset. Since Trump has not announced any relative policy initiatives to actually reconstitute America’s industrial manufacturing base and ways to make it competitive globally, the falsity of MAGA grows every day that no plan’s announced. Whatever fantastical goals for the Trade War Trump entertained in his mind have run into a very hard wall of reality. The Globalization envisioned by Neoliberalcon reactionaries known as Globalists has failed and the new reality of Multipolar Globalization is in the process of supplanting it. The institutionalized web of multilateral organizations formed 25+ years ago are too powerful for the former global hegemon to destroy unless it also destroys itself. Like the wolf in the children’s tale, will Trump continue to try and blow the house of Multipolar Globalization down, or will he tire and seek a way to co-exist with it? This is all about managing a declining empire; one choice will hasten its decline, the other choice will prolong its existence and make its landing softer.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!