Shipping containers are stacked behind truck flatbeds at the Port of Long Beach, California, on April 2, 2025. Photo: VCG.
Editor’s Note:
The US on Monday set new August 1 deadline and warned Japan and South Korea of 25 percent tariff, 30 percent for South Africa and others as high as 40 percent. Over the past months, in response to US tariff threats, some countries have capitulated, others have remained steadfast, and many have adopted a wait-and-see strategy. What factors have influenced these differing responses? And what lessons can the world take away from the US policy flip-flop on tariffs? The Global Times has invited three international scholars to join this discussion.
Einar Tangen, a senior fellow of Taihe Institute and chairman of Asia Narratives
As the previously scheduled July 9 expiration of the US government’s 90-day “reciprocal tariff” grace period approaches, the global trade landscape resembles a high-stakes reenactment of The Hunger Games, as weaker nations are forced into one-sided deals by trade threats.
The US administration’s aggressive trade tactics, which have broadsided 180 countries and regions, have yielded few results – some have capitulated, while others wait or resist. However, the US has no endgame; its bully tactics – using tariffs as blunt instruments, combined with reckless domestic economic policies, are pushing the US toward economic turmoil.
In the past 90 days, the US has weaponized tariffs to extract concessions, mirroring the dystopian coercion of The Hunger Games. The UK and Vietnam folded early, accepting deals that heavily favor the US. The UK secured reduced tariffs on cars but gained little else, while Vietnam agreed to a 20 percent tariff on exports and a punitive 40 percent levy on transshipped goods, effectively bending to US demands to limit Chinese supply chain influence.
Meanwhile, Japan remains defiant, with the White House openly berating its leaders as “spoiled.” On Monday, the White House renewed its threat of a 25 percent tax on products entering the country from Japan from August 1. EU is negotiating exemptions for key sectors like pharmaceuticals and aircraft but remains vulnerable to US pressure. China, however, is playing the long game. While a tentative agreement has eased tensions, Beijing is pacing itself for the remaining three and a half years of the Donald Trump administration.
The global community knows that US tariffs are more political theater than trade policy. Markets remain volatile, businesses delay investments and supply chains fragment – yet with no advantage to the US. Worse, the US domestic agenda – exemplified by the “The One, Big, Beautiful Bill” – exacerbates the damage by slashing social services while ballooning the deficit, further straining an economy already under pressure from inflation, a weakening dollar and social division.
The dollar’s dominance as the global reserve currency is eroding, as the US combination of protectionism and fiscal irresponsibility accelerates its decline. The current administration is taking a path that leads to a self-inflicted economic disaster, treating trade issues like episodes from The Apprentice TV show – with the American people being the losers.
‘They’re Trying to Destroy the Dollar’: Trump Threatens BRICS
Warwick Powell, an adjunct professor at the Queensland University of Technology, senior fellow at Taihe Institute and former advisor to former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd
Australia and the US have a free trade agreement, and Australia hopes it will be honored. However, hope is not a strategy.
Plying the politicians in Congress with ebullient praise, invoking grand notions of allies in war, and telling Washington how important Australia’s economic fortunes are – along with letting Washington know that Australian firms are investing in American jobs – all reactions to a clear shift in disposition inside the Beltway.
Those on the “defense contractor” gravy train, principally former politicians, will unsurprisingly see all of this as a small price to pay. A tug of the forelock greases the wheels. Reaffirming Washington’s vanity may play well in the diplomatic-cum-defense lobbying circuit, where obsequious praise and exaggerated claims of bonds and friendship are de rigueur, but it is ultimately a tactical move, not a reconciliation with new strategic realities.
The current US administration unilaterally ignored the longstanding free trade agreement by levying a 10 percent tariff on Australian goods despite the US running a trade surplus with Australia. This came on top of the 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum. Now, American big pharma has set its sights on Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which guarantees low-cost drugs to Australians.
The US has demonstrated a capricious willingness to jettison bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. It is withdrawing from the institutions of global trade. A resolution has been introduced in the US Congress to withdraw the country from the WTO. For Australian, as a trading nation, the dependability of these agreements and institutional arrangements lies at the heart of its national economic welfare.
The unfolding bilateral arrangements that are likely to emerge over the coming period will create a high-transaction cost environment ripe for regulatory arbitrage. How such an environment impacts Australian trading enterprises will ultimately depend on the details.
As for specific bilateral outcomes stemming from the “Liberation Day” impositions, Australia is actively seeking relief and exemptions. There’s more at play than merely tariffs, however, insofar as the US-Australia dynamic is concerned. The shadow of the Elbridge Colby review of AUKUS and its signature piece – American nuclear submarines to Australia – casts a pall over the entire negotiation process.
Washington has demonstrated its capricious character, and Australia hasn’t yet adjusted. It will need to.
Arnold August, a Canadian author and journalist
Canada is standing at a crossroads. Faced with repeated tariff hikes, threats of “annexation” as the US “51st state,” forced military spending and bullying over domestic tax policy, Canadians have every reason to ask: Is this what an “ally” looks like? Why should we continue to depend on Washington?
On February 16, just days after the US reinstated 25 percent tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum and floated the idea of annexing Canada as the “51st state,” a symbolic moment occurred in Montreal. During a match of the 4 Nations Face-Off, where Canada and the US faced off on the ice, Canadian fans loudly booed the American national anthem despite a call for respectful silence. The event, broadcast across the continent, echoed iconic moments of protest in American sports history and captured a growing undercurrent of discontent among the Canadian public. That discontent is not without cause.
On June 27, the US threatened to terminate trade talks unless Canada repealed its new Digital Services Tax, which would affect major US tech firms like Amazon and Google. On June 30, Ottawa rescinded the tax, prompting the White House Secretary to conclude that Canada had “caved” to Trump.
Lloyd Axworthy, Canada’s Liberal party minister of foreign affairs from 1996 to 2000, wrote recently in his blog post: “When do we stop pretending it’s all part of some clever negotiating strategy that justifies bootlicking in hopes of tariff concessions?” In my view, this represents the current Canadian reaction. It does not bode well for any adverse decision on July 9.
For many Canadians, these developments point to the need for a broader strategic recalibration. As McGill University lecturer Julian Karaguesian wrote, the US trade war against Canada has, in some ways, “freed Canada from the Washington imperative.”
Meanwhile, the world has taken note of how China counters US tariff threats. For countries like Canada, this could represent an enlightenment in some ways.
