Qamar Bashir
My reading of China has always been of a country that is sagacious, forgiving and accomodating—an entity flowing naturally through history, shaped by the burden and blessing of over 5,000 years of civilizational legacy. China has long carried the unique distinction of never being an occupying force in the historical sense, never driven by the imperial ambition to rule the world. Despite holding immense power at different junctures in history, China refrained from conquest. Its Great Wall was built not as a launchpad for outward domination, but as a safeguard for inward integration. This tradition of strategic restraint and internal focus has morphed into the philosophical foundation of President Xi Jinping’s economic and diplomatic agenda in the 21st century.
China’s foreign policy, even amid rising global tensions, has maintained its emphasis on win-win cooperation, mutual growth, and infrastructural diplomacy. It does not promote regime change, nor does it meddle in the internal politics of other nations. China’s strength lies in its ability to uplift weaker economies through massive infrastructure projects, energy support, port development, and institutional capacity-building. These efforts are not intended to dominate but to elevate. That is the spirit of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), offering struggling nations an alternative model of growth without conditionalities that mirror neo-colonialism.
In contrast, the Trump administration’s aggressive “America First” policy has been marked by an unrelenting tariff war, often in violation of international norms, bilateral treaties, and the principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO). These tariffs were not just protectionist; they were unilateral assaults on the interconnected architecture of the global economy. By weaponizing tariffs, Trump sought to coerce trading partners and reconfigure supply chains through brute economic power. However, in doing so, the administration not only antagonized allies and adversaries alike but also disrupted global trade balances, supply chains, and investor confidence.
The global economy is an ecosystem. If one part of it is harmed, the ripple effects are felt across continents. In this context, the Trump tariffs didn’t just target China—they undermined the very structure of global trade and collaboration. The United States, which once championed free trade, suddenly became its greatest disruptor. This led to global uncertainty, inflation in various sectors, and rising consumer prices within the United States itself.
In response to this unprecedented tariff regime, China issued its strongest economic and diplomatic rebuttal to date. Breaking from its traditional quiet diplomacy, Beijing made it unequivocally clear that it would not succumb to unilateral economic bullying. For the first time, Chinese officials accused the United States of distorting international trade norms and harming global economic recovery.
China argued that the United States had, in fact, been the largest beneficiary of globalization. With a massive 25% share in world trade, the U.S. economic dominance was built on the very trade practices it was now dismantling. China emphasized that it did not initiate the trade war but would not hesitate to defend its interests. It pledged to open up its economy further, reduce tariffs, and increase imports—not out of compulsion, but to demonstrate its commitment to global cooperation. This stands in sharp contrast to the inward-looking, protectionist tendencies of the Trump administration.
China’s response was calm but resolute. It promised to uphold the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. It reaffirmed its belief in genuine multilateralism, rejecting all forms of unilateralism and economic coercion. China stood firmly in support of the international system with the United Nations at its core and the multilateral trading system with the WTO at its foundation.
China’s declaration also emphasized that the vast majority of nations still believed in fairness, justice, and the rule of international law. These countries, it argued, would eventually stand on the right side of history—not because of allegiance to any one superpower, but because equity must triumph over hegemony.
Trump, meanwhile, sought to justify the economic fallout from his tariff blitzkrieg by promising future investments totaling $7 trillion. However, even he admitted that the U.S. stock market had lost nearly $6 trillion in value within days. While the theoretical future investment may or may not materialize over four to five years, the immediate damage was undeniable. The American consumer bore the brunt of the tariffs, with increased prices on everything from electronics to household goods.
What Trump failed to recognize—or perhaps chose to ignore—is that tariffs on imports function as a hidden tax on American citizens. When tariffs are levied on goods from China or any other country, U.S. importers pass those costs onto retailers, who in turn pass them onto consumers. So, while the U.S. Treasury may gain in the short term from tariff revenues, it is ultimately the American people who pay the price.
This disconnect between political rhetoric and economic reality triggered public backlash. Demonstrations erupted across the United States, not just from ideological opponents of Trump but from ordinary citizens suffering from inflation and job insecurity. The symbols associated with Trump’s protectionist agenda—banners, flags, and campaign props—became the targets of public outrage, a visible expression of disillusionment with failed promises and mounting hardship.
The damage was not just economic; it was reputational. America’s standing as a leader of the free world, a promoter of open markets and democratic values, was called into question. The aggressive imposition of tariffs on allies and adversaries alike sent a message that America was retreating from the world stage, abandoning its commitments, and undermining its credibility.
What is the via media in this escalating trade conflict? The answer lies in dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect. Instead of unilaterally imposing tariffs, the United States must return to the table and engage its partners through negotiation, evidence-based studies, and inclusive policy-making. Any trade policy that causes disproportionate harm to a segment of the global population—be it American or foreign—is inherently flawed.
Tariffs should be the last resort, not the first weapon of choice. They must be evaluated based on who truly benefits and who bears the cost. If the people of both nations stand to gain, then policy adjustments may be justified. But if tariffs disproportionately hurt consumers, strain diplomatic ties, and fracture global supply chains, then they are not only counterproductive but dangerous.
The world today demands cooperation over confrontation. It requires strategic empathy rather than economic nationalism. China’s model of infrastructure-led diplomacy and economic integration may not be perfect, but it offers an alternative vision to brute-force protectionism. A world driven by consultation and shared prosperity is far more stable than one governed by unilateral decrees and economic coercion.
The battle between tariff wars and trade cooperation is not just a contest of policies—it is a contest of visions. The world must choose between retreating into silos or building bridges across continents. In this defining moment, China’s calm and strategic response to Trump’s aggressive tariffs may well mark a turning point in the global order.
It is a call for equity—not hegemony.
Qamar Bashir
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC
Macomb, Detroit, Michigan
