Do US tariffs counter China or harm partners?

ByYasir Masood

On April 2, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs, framing them as a corrective measure for what he described as decades of "unfair trade practices" harming American economic interests. The move has drawn scrutiny for its potential impact on nations like Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Lesotho, Madagascar and Vietnam.

Over 180 countries, including many designated by the UN as Least Developed Countries (LDCs), now face heightened economic uncertainty. Critics argue the tariffs could disproportionately affect these nations, where industries and employment often rely on interconnected trade networks. While the Trump administration maintains the policy aims to protect U.S. industries and workers, some analysts speculate it may also align with broader efforts to reduce reliance on supply chains tied to geopolitical rivals like China.

Proponents of the tariffs suggest they could encourage diversification toward U.S.-aligned economic frameworks in the long term. However, opponents warn of immediate risks, including disrupted industries, strained diplomatic relations and potential social instability in vulnerable economies. The policy underscores a tension between national economic sovereignty and the realities of global interdependence, raising questions about the costs and benefits of decoupling in an interconnected world.

Southeast Asia is among the regions most affected by the tariffs, with Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar facing rates of 49 percent, 48 percent and 44 percent, respectively. In Cambodia, where approximately 20 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, the tariffs apply to key exports like garments and textiles. Laos, still recovering from the 2023 dam collapse, grapples with similar pressures on its agricultural and mining sectors. Myanmar, still rebuilding after the devastating earthquake, contends with tariffs disrupting its nascent manufacturing industry.

In Africa, Lesotho, a nation with a $2 billion GDP and a 25 percent unemployment rate, confronts a 50 percent tariff on textiles, a sector accounting for 30 percent of its formal workforce. Madagascar, where 75 percent of the population lives on less than $1.90 daily, must navigate a 47 percent tariff on vanilla and cloves, which comprise 20 percent of its export revenue. Nauru, a small island nation reliant on phosphate exports, shoulders a 30 percent levy and Guyana, amid post-colonial economic recovery, faces similar strains of 38 percent.

Experts note geopolitical undertones in the policy. Siwage Dharma Negara of Singapore's ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute suggests the tariffs align with U.S. efforts to counter China's Belt and Road Initiative by pressuring its partners. However, he stresses that the immediate economic strain falls heavily on low-income workers, such as Cambodian garment laborers earning $200 monthly and Laotian farmers in flood-prone regions.

Elsewhere in Asia, Bangladesh, after years of reform and poised to graduate from LDC status, now confronts a 37 percent tariff on its 46-billion apparel industry, which employs over four million workers, mostly women. Navigating an IMF bailout, Sri Lanka faces 44 percent tariffs on $5 billion in apparel exports. Pakistan's textile sector, critical to its economy, is taxed 29 percent.

The tariffs' impacts vary significantly across regions. In the Middle East, rebuilding after decades of conflict, Iraq is taxed at 39 percent on oil exports. Vietnam, vulnerable to climate shocks and recently elevated from LDC status, manages a 46 percent tariff on electronics, while Indonesia and Thailand face 32 percent and 36 percent rates on auto and electronics exports, disrupting multinational supply chains. The broader implications of the tariffs are multifaceted. Supply chains face strains as companies like Nike and Adidas absorb rising production costs in Indonesia.

Angola, classified as an LDC due to prolonged instability, levies 32 percent on oil. Botswana, Libya and Algeria, which rely on diamonds and hydrocarbons, encounter tariffs ranging from 30-37 percent. Syria, after enduring over a decade of conflict, is subject to a 41 percent rate.

U.S. tariffs spark mixed opinions. Critics, like Justin Wolfers who is a professor of economics at the University of Michigan and media outlets such as The Guardian and Al Jazeera, say they hurt smaller economies and U.S. families, pointing to cases like Madagascar's high tariff affecting a $12 million surplus. CNN estimates these tariffs could cost households up to $5,000 a year, and The Times of India critiques their effects on poorer nations, citing Lesotho as an example. While critics argue these tariffs disproportionately harm vulnerable nations, proponents contend they are necessary for addressing trade imbalances.

Given Donald Trump's unpredictable policy shifts, these tariffs could be viewed as a strategic tactic to extract concessions from trading partners, raising the question of whether they represent a reckless protectionist move or a calculated attempt to force economic realignment with the U.S.

By targeting weaker nations, particularly those linked to China's supply chains, the U.S. perhaps aims to disrupt trade networks and push reliance on Western systems, framed as fair competition. While proponents argue such strategies strengthen global economic stability, critics contend they blend isolation and pressure to compel alignment with U.S. regulations, yet they could risk significant backlash.

The Global South, especially less powerful nations, faces complex choices amid shifting global dynamics: maintaining ties with traditional powers or pursuing partnerships with alternative actors. History indicates that powers emphasizing exclusionary policies risk self-limiting outcomes. Advocates champion solidarity as a path forward, but geopolitical competition ensures no single approach prevails.

The author isa Pakistani political analyst, academic and broadcast journalist.