By Qaiser Nawab
U.S. President Donald Trump announced on April 22 that the exorbitant tariffs imposed on Chinese goods would be “significantly reduced.” For a politician once obsessed with trade wars and economic brinkmanship, this volte-face is a candid concession that protectionist overreach has its limits. On the same day, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent echoed this sentiment, declaring the existing tariff regime on China “unsustainable.” These statements unmask a fundamental truth: Washington’s tariff war is floundering under the weight of its own contradictions.
Let us not forget the numbers. According to China’s Ministry of Commerce, cumulative tariffs on some Chinese goods have skyrocketed to 245%—a figure that would be laughable were it not so economically absurd. This is not merely a question of punitive economics; it’s an exposé of how tariffs, traditionally used as instruments of statecraft, have been reduced to tools of coercion and short-sighted populism.
The Trump administration’s original rationale behind the tariff hike was to curtail what it saw as unfair Chinese trade practices and force Beijing to accept American terms in trade negotiations. But years into this economic arm-wrestling match, it is evident that the results have been underwhelming at best and damaging at worst. American consumers, particularly those in the middle and working classes, have borne the brunt through increased prices. U.S. manufacturers who rely on Chinese components have faced rising production costs, while farmers—ironically among Trump’s most loyal supporters—suffered major export losses due to retaliatory tariffs from Beijing.
This recognition that the current policy is “unsustainable” points to a hard reality: tariffs have failed to yield the strategic leverage Washington once imagined. Instead, the high tariff walls have bred mutual mistrust, economic inefficiencies, and collateral damage on both sides of the Pacific. The so-called ‘America First’ policy has gradually begun to look like ‘America Isolated.’
China, for its part, has refused to be coerced. Its response to the U.S. pressure campaign has been measured but firm, reminding Washington repeatedly that such tactics defy the principles of equality and mutual respect that underpin international diplomacy. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs aptly countered Trump’s recent remarks—where he implied the “ball is in China’s court”—by stating that it was in fact the U.S. that unilaterally started the trade war. China’s stance is rooted in defending its legitimate rights, not engaging in the transactional bravado that often characterizes U.S. foreign economic policy.
More crucially, this episode underscores the urgent need for a new framework of global economic engagement—one not built on zero-sum thinking or the outdated Cold War calculus of containment. Trade should not be weaponized. It must be seen as a bridge for cooperation, not a tool of hegemony. The rules-based international order that the U.S. so often claims to champion must apply uniformly, without exception for political expediency.
What the world needs now is strategic maturity. The U.S.–China relationship is far too consequential to be governed by tariffs and tweets. If Trump’s admission is merely a tactical retreat—perhaps driven by electoral calculations or mounting domestic economic pressure—then the world should remain cautiously skeptical.
Regardless, the message is clear: unilateralism has reached its breaking point. Dialogue, mutual respect, and multilateralism are no longer optional—they are imperative.
About Author:
Mr. Qaiser Nawab is the Chairman of the Belt and Road Initiative for Sustainable Development (BRISD) and can be reached at [email protected]
