In the lexicon of international affairs, certain metaphors gain traction so easily that they begin to mask rather than illuminate the realities they aim to describe. One such term — “trade war” — has been carelessly tossed around in media commentary, policy debates, and think tank analyses in reference to the ongoing tariff escalations between the United States and China. But calling it a “war” is not just a misnomer; it is an injustice to the real, devastating wars that scar lives and nations.
Let us first dispense with the illusion that what is transpiring between Beijing and Washington is akin to warfare. Wars—real wars—mean bloodshed, destruction, displacement, and deep psychological trauma. Consider Ukraine, Gaza, or Sudan, where the price of conflict is not measured in GDP percentage points, but in lost lives and wrecked homes. By equating economic competition with war, we trivialize the visceral horrors of actual conflict. This rhetorical inflation dulls our collective sensitivity to genuine crises. Trade is, by its very nature, a peacetime pursuit — one that must be understood and evaluated as a function of strategy, policy, and diplomacy rather than dramatized as combat.
What we are witnessing is, in fact, a high-stakes economic chess match — a global game of brinkmanship that hinges on leverage, not lethal force. And at the center of this tariff storm stands Donald Trump, a president who prefers volatility over conventional policy-making. Trump did not merely respond to an existing imbalance; he ignited this economic confrontation with purposeful aggression, challenging what he saw as an unsustainable trade deficit between the U.S. and China.
But what was the real goal behind Trump's sweeping tariffs? Was this simply a protective shield for American manufacturers? On the surface, yes. Trump's early economic message was to cushion domestic producers from the flood of cheaper Chinese goods. However, the policy comes with an immediate consequence: the consumer pays. Higher tariffs translate into more expensive imported goods, passing the burden directly to American shoppers. Trump’s justification? A sort of fiscal alchemy: use the revenues generated from tariffs to fund a compensatory tax cut for U.S. citizens. In his view, the short-term cost borne by the public would be offset by a longer-term rebate.
For this balancing act to succeed, however, the system must function in equilibrium. That means the United States must continue importing — and in substantial volume. If tariff rates spiral into what economists label as “prohibitive levels,” trade can effectively collapse. Imports may dry up entirely, defeating the revenue-generating purpose of the policy and creating shortages that can spiral into broader economic malaise.
And here lies the paradox: the strategy necessitates moderation. While the rhetoric may be bombastic, the underlying mechanics must be finely tuned. If the aim is to force trade partners into fairer terms while still maintaining revenue flow, tariffs must sting but not paralyze.
Yet the escalation has been anything but moderate. On April 2, Trump upped the ante with a sweeping 145% tariff hike on most Chinese imports, triggering what the media quickly dubbed a “global trade war.” In a swift response, Beijing retaliated with a 125% tariff on American goods. Bilateral trade between the two economic titans has since plummeted. The figures suggest that tariffs may have already brushed the prohibitive threshold. If Trump’s gamble was predicated on China blinking first, it now appears that he misread the strength and resolve of Beijing’s leadership. Rather than recoiling, China has entrenched itself deeper into strategic resistance, deploying not just economic tools but a political narrative aimed at rallying domestic support and projecting strength.
In a surreal twist of public diplomacy, Trump began publicly asserting that Chinese President Xi Jinping had reached out to him via telephone to discuss tariff negotiations. “Xi called,” Trump declared in an interview with Time magazine, framing the supposed contact as a signal of Chinese concession. He doubled down on the narrative in subsequent appearances, claiming that dialogue was already underway.
Beijing, however, issued categorical denials. No such call had taken place, Chinese officials insisted. No such negotiations were ongoing. Given Trump’s well-documented tendency to manipulate public narratives to his advantage, China’s denials carried greater credibility. Still, the notion that there was zero communication between the two nations defies logic and precedent. On April 17, China’s Ministry of Commerce acknowledged through the state-run Xinhua agency that low-level, working-level communications were ongoing with Washington. Yet high-level political dialogue remained elusive.
Behind China’s hardened public posture lies a quietly calculated strategy. In contrast to the reactive and often impulsive tone of Trump’s approach, China appears to be playing a long game. Officials in Beijing had begun preparing for a second wave of tariff tensions long before Trump returned to the political arena. Their readiness is more than bureaucratic — it is philosophical. In many ways, China is emulating Trump’s own “maximum pressure” strategy, aiming to force the U.S. into a moment of capitulation.
There are advantages to China’s position. Its one-party political system allows it to absorb economic shocks without the fear of voter backlash. Resources can be swiftly mobilized to cushion the effects of tariffs. State-controlled media provides a unified narrative, devoid of the cacophony that plagues U.S. media cycles. Indeed, China’s foreign ministry released a now-viral short video titled “Never Kneel Down,” a stark symbol of national defiance. Commentaries in official outlets even revisited Mao Zedong’s 1938 treatise “On Protracted War,” underscoring the belief that perseverance leads to ultimate victory — just as it did against Japan in 1945.
Though the hyperbole may be performative, the underlying signal is clear: China is betting that the U.S. will eventually need an exit strategy.
A couple of weeks ago, the social media account Yuyuan Tantian — affiliated with state broadcaster CCTV — claimed the U.S. had attempted to open backdoor negotiations through “multiple channels.” The post, citing anonymous sources, suggested that China need not respond until Washington demonstrated serious intent. The following day, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued a more measured statement, confirming that Beijing was reviewing Washington’s willingness to resume talks.
These moves — subtle but significant — hint at an eventual diplomatic thaw. Analysts see the twin messages as potential olive branches. If they are genuine, the world’s two largest economies may be inching toward a face-saving dialogue. The best-case scenario, still plausible, is a direct phone call between Trump and Xi, followed by a staged bilateral meeting within months — likely during the sidelines of a global summit.
The clock is ticking. Data from both economies suggests the toll is mounting. U.S. GDP contracted for the first time in three years during the first quarter. Simultaneously, China’s manufacturing purchasing managers’ index plummeted to a 16-month low in April. The costs of escalation are no longer hypothetical.
Nevertheless, Beijing remains faithful to a strategy born during the first iteration of Trump’s trade offensive in 2018 — “fight but don’t break off.” This principle means maintaining engagement on geopolitical flashpoints, counter-narcotics efforts, and military-to-military communications, even as tariffs rage. The economic theater does not preclude pragmatic cooperation elsewhere. In all likelihood, the prolonged impasse will give way to dialogue. A deal may be struck that gradually reduces tariff rates to more manageable levels by year’s end. This would allow both leaders to claim victory at home, all while restoring global trade flows that have been disrupted by their game of brinkmanship.
It is no coincidence that the retaliatory tariffs imposed by China mirrored the U.S. hikes almost to the decimal. At 125% and 145% respectively, these levels are considered extraordinarily high — perhaps even approaching the “prohibitive” range, where trade effectively ceases. At such heights, tariffs cease to be a policy instrument and become a trade blockade in all but name.
Trump’s approach, while unconventional and widely derided, achieved something remarkable: universal acceptance of a baseline 10% tariff. Countries that would otherwise resist such impositions have largely acquiesced. Smaller nations, like Singapore, have opted for negotiation over retaliation. Even major economies such as those in the EU, despite having the collective might to respond in kind, have only offered symbolic pushback, lamenting the U.S.’s drift from multilateralism while avoiding direct confrontation.
In essence, Trump frontloaded the pain — imposing excessive tariffs first, then positioning himself to dial them back selectively. This maneuver has enabled him to extract tacit acceptance of a new baseline. Had he begun with modest tariffs and sought WTO arbitration, the outcome would likely have been years of procedural inertia and global resistance. By tearing up the script, Trump changed the terms of engagement.
Critics who paint Trump as reckless or irrational often miss this point. If he truly wanted to destroy trade flows, the strategy would be self-defeating. A collapsed global trade system would mean minimal revenues from tariffs and a prolonged recession — outcomes no leader can afford heading into an election cycle.
The real strategy seems to be this: shock the system, create chaos, then return to order on your own terms.
This is not to endorse Trump’s methods, but to recognize that there is a certain strategic coherence, however unorthodox, to his madness. He is not alone in this arena of strategic calculation. Xi Jinping, too, is playing a masterful game, countering pressure with patience and drawing from China’s historical playbook to project an image of enduring strength.
The world must now wait and watch. Will this “tariff game” collapse under its own weight, or will it evolve into a new equilibrium of managed rivalry? Will the upcoming months bring a detente or a deepening of hostilities masked as economic policy?
One thing is certain: despite the drama and the damage, the players are not seeking destruction. They are seeking dominance — and the outcome of this global gambit may shape the contours of 21st-century trade for years to come.
Rubayet Hasan |
