As U.S. President Donald Trump doubles down on his protectionist agenda, wielding tariffs like a club to discipline world economies, a curious pattern is beginning to emerge, one where America’s hardline stance may be doing more to consolidate China’s global economic grip than to loosen it.
The Latest Blow
Trump’s newly finalized list of tariffs sent shockwaves through governments, markets, and boardrooms around the globe on Friday, as leaders scrambled to decode the logic behind the sweeping and often inconsistent levies. While some nations like Canada and South Africa reacted with alarm, warning of job losses and higher costs for American consumers, others were left reeling from punitive rates or clinging to last-minute hopes of a deal.
Furthermore, the unpredictability of Trump’s tariffs is as much a story of economic shock as it is of diplomatic confusion. When the initial tariff list was floated in April, it drew not only backlash but bafflement. For example – a 10% levy on the Heard and McDonald Islands, (remote Antarctic outposts inhabited only by penguins) while a staggering 50% rate on Lesotho, a tiny landlocked African nation? Many analysts questioned the rationale or the lack thereof.
The finalized list this week brought some relief, but not without new waves of dismay. Among the hardest-hit were Syria (41%), Laos and Myanmar (40%), followed by Iraq, Serbia (35%), and Algeria (30%). These are not economic heavyweights by any measure, nor do they pose significant trade threats to the United States.
In some cases, the damage had already been done. Lesotho, for instance, saw its original 50% tariff trimmed to 15% but not before American buyers paused orders, thousands lost jobs, and the government was forced to declare a state of disaster.
Elsewhere, bizarre inconsistencies continued – again – The Heard and McDonald Islands technically Australian territory, dodged a harsher tariff, remaining at the original 10% rate.
Therefore, why some were spared and others weren’t remains unclear.
“It’s hard to tell if there is any logic,” said David Henig of the European Center for International Political Economy. With no detailed explanation from the White House, he suspects that the tariffs were largely based on trade surplus data with countries posting the largest surpluses facing the stiffest penalties.
Trump, for his part, defended the tariffs by declaring that these surpluses “constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.” But many economists disagree, noting that trade deficits are not inherently harmful and Trump’s approach is already the subject of legal challenges that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The apparent randomness of Trump’s tariffs led to swift blowback. Switzerland, among the wealthiest countries in the world, found itself hit with a 39% rate. Its government responded with “great regret,” while markets punished companies like Watches of Switzerland Group PLC, whose shares fell 8.5% in response.
India, a key U.S. ally, was also slapped with a 25% tariff. Yet the government downplayed any damage to diplomatic ties, with Ministry of Commerce spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal expressing confidence in the continued strength of the relationship.
In Southeast Asia, the reaction was more optimistic and revealing.
Thailand and Cambodia, fresh off a five-day border conflict, welcomed a 19% tariff as a “win-win.” Malaysia, too, called its assigned rate a “positive outcome.” Many of these nations had feared harsher treatment and were relieved to find themselves on an even playing field. Vietnam received a 20% rate, close to the 15% levied on Japan, South Korea, and the EU.
Meanwhile, Taiwan, which has a sizable trade surplus with the U.S., landed a 20% rate, lower than the initially threatened 32% but higher than its East Asian neighbors. Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te called the tariff “temporary,” signaling that negotiations might still bring a better outcome.
The Coin Flip
Still looming over all these developments is the yet-to-be-finalized trade equation between the world’s two largest economies – the U.S. and China. After months of tit-for-tat tariffs, both sides agreed to a pause, currently holding until August 12. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, following talks with Chinese trade officials, said the pause’s extension was pending Trump’s approval.
China, meanwhile, appears to be playing the long game. “There are no winners in tariff wars or trade wars,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun, a diplomatic jab illustrating China’s consistent position.
But here is what we are wondering – while Trump’s tariffs were designed to isolate and punish, they may be doing the opposite – driving affected nations closer to China.
As Trump Closes the Door, China Opens the Gates: Africa’s Quiet Shift Toward Beijing
Across the African continent, the fallout from President Trump’s sweeping tariff regime is not only economic, it’s strategic. What the U.S. framed as a bold move to reclaim its trade advantage is, in many African capitals, being interpreted as abandonment. And into that vacuum steps China, ready with open arms and open markets.
Africa, now adjusting to this new tariff-laden reality, finds itself facing some of the steepest export penalties under Trump’s directive. Countries like Libya, South Africa, Algeria, and Tunisia were slapped with tariffs as high as 30%, while eighteen other African nations saw 15% levies, a modified but still damaging blow.
The justification? Trade deficits with the U.S., rather than the tariff burdens those countries actually impose. Critics argue this logic is not only flawed but geopolitically tone-deaf.
South Africa, one of Africa’s economic heavyweights, has pushed back hard, questioning the very data Trump’s administration used to justify the 30% rate on its exports. Officials argue the tariff does not reflect a fair or accurate picture of their trade relationship with the U.S.
But as Washington takes a punitive approach, Beijing is seizing the moment. In June, China announced it would waive nearly all tariffs on imports from its African trade partners, offering a lifeline that couldn’t have come at a more strategic time.
“We [Africa] are going straight into the hands of China,” Nigerian economist Bismarck Rewane bluntly stated, calling the shift toward Beijing “an unfortunate outcome” – not by African design, but by American neglect.
South African researcher Neo Letswalo echoed this sentiment, calling China the continent’s “next U.S.” and arguing that Trump’s isolationist policies have only accelerated America’s decline as a global leader. “America is gradually forfeiting its global leadership status,” Letswalo said. “The more countries become less dependent on the U.S., the greater the opportunity for China to become an alternative.”
The White House, notably, made no successful trade deal with any African nation before the tariff deadline, a move Letswalo labeled “an open goal for China.”
Nowhere is the damage more visible than in Lesotho, a tiny but strategically important textile exporter. Once shielded under a U.S. trade agreement allowing duty-free access, Lesotho was hammered with an initial 50% tariff, only later reduced to 15%. But by then, the damage was done.
Trump, in characteristically dismissive style, referred to Lesotho as a place “nobody has ever heard of” — despite the fact that bilateral trade exceeded $240 million last year.
South Africa, too, is staring down economic uncertainty. Its citrus industry, already under pressure, warned of significant job losses if the tariffs stand. The Citrus Growers’ Association expressed deep concern: “Hundreds of thousands of cartons of citrus are ready to be shipped to the U.S., but if these charges take effect, most of this fruit will be left unsold.”
The automobile sector, another major South African industry, is also at risk. “Companies are already threatening to leave,” Letswalo said, noting that tariffs would only deepen existing economic woes and unemployment.
South Africa’s Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, Gwede Mantashe, hinted at the country’s shifting priorities: “If the U.S. imposes high tariffs, we must look for alternative markets. Our biggest trading partner is China – not the U.S.”
Yet even this pivot comes with caveats. Citrus exporters, for example, worry their highly specialized products may not suit alternative markets as easily. The transition won’t be seamless — but it now appears inevitable.
In Trump’s pursuit of “America First,” he may have unintentionally triggered “China Everywhere.”
Trading One Giant for Another? The Risks of a China-Centric Future
While many African nations pivot toward China in the wake of Trump’s tariffs, the shift comes with cautionary notes, particularly from those who fear that replacing Washington with Beijing could amount to swapping one set of problems for another.
South African researcher Neo Letswalo warns that over-reliance on China may expose vulnerable industries to new forms of exploitation. “Especially for nascent industries within African countries, the shift could be risky,” he said. “If they’re not protected, Chinese products will flood and outcompete them, as many African countries are price-sensitive markets.”
Indeed, China’s track record on trade with Africa is far from flawless. According to the China-Global South Project (CGSP), many of Beijing’s deals with African nations have resulted in significant trade imbalances, often skewed heavily in China’s favor. The bulk of African exports to China consist of raw materials, while China exports manufactured goods in return, a structure that mirrors the old colonial trade model in modern dress.
Even South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, in his meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping last year, called for “more balanced trade” between Africa and China – a subtle but clear recognition that the existing dynamics need reform.
Letswalo argues that while it may be pragmatic for Africa to lean on China now, the continent must also invest in itself. His prescription? Accelerate the implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), a landmark pact designed to strengthen intra-African trade and reduce dependence on external powers.
Launched in 2020, AfCFTA remains underutilized, with just over 20 of Africa’s 55 countries currently trading under the agreement. But if fully realized, it could empower the continent to build supply chains, protect local industries, and dictate its own economic destiny.
Nigerian economist Bismarck Rewane echoes this sentiment. Rather than viewing Trump’s tariffs as a blow, he believes they may be a wake-up call. “The U.S. tariffs could inspire Africa to build economic resilience and be less dependent on lopsided trade,” he said. “Above all, the continent must be more inward-looking rather than outward-dependent.”
Still, China’s dominance in global trade is hard to ignore and growing. As of 2023, China was the world’s largest exporter, responsible for about 14% of global trade, according to McKinsey & Company. The challenge, however, lies in the imbalance within China’s own economy: roughly 32% of global manufacturing originates in China, yet the country accounts for only 12% of global consumption.
That gap generates a massive trade surplus, nearly $1 trillion in 2024 alone, and incentivizes China to aggressively push its surplus goods into global markets, especially in developing regions. This not only undercuts local industries but also creates dependency cycles that may be hard to escape.
The Last Bit, Did Trump Just Hand China the Trade War Trophy Without a Fight?
Thus, from the looks of it, in trying to reclaim America’s economic dominance through tariffs, Trump may have inadvertently handed China a geopolitical gift. Nations penalized by Washington are turning to Beijing not out of preference, but necessity, a shift that, over time, could reshape global alliances and supply chains.
While the immediate winners and losers of Trump’s tariff war are still being sorted, China on its part perhaps did not just weather the storm, it may have quietly redrawn the map.