- INTRODUCTION
The US-China trade disputes,
escalating significantly since 2018, represent a pivotal shift in global economic
dynamics. Initiated under the Trump administration and continuing with
modifications under subsequent administrations, these disputes have centered on
tariffs, trade imbalances, intellectual property concerns, and geopolitical
strategies. This analysis explores the evolution of the trade conflict, its
multifaceted impacts on global markets, and the role of bilateral trade
agreements in both escalating and mitigating tensions.
Evolution of US-China Trade Disputes
The US-China trade relationship has long been marked by
tensions over trade imbalances, with the US maintaining a significant trade
deficit with China. By 2017, the US trade deficit with China reached
approximately $375 billion, fueling concerns about unfair trade practices,
including intellectual property theft and market access restrictions. In 2018,
the Trump administration initiated the trade war by imposing tariffs on $34
billion worth of Chinese goods, citing Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974,
which addresses unfair trade practices. China retaliated with equivalent
tariffs on US goods, such as soybeans and automobiles, marking the beginning of
a tit-for-tat escalation.
Key Mileposts
- 2018-2019: The US imposed tariffs on
$250 billion of Chinese imports, with rates up to 25%, while China
retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of US goods. By 2019, US tariffs
covered approximately $350 billion of Chinese imports, and China targeted
$100 billion of US exports. The trade war disrupted supply chains,
particularly in electronics and manufacturing.
- Phase
One Trade Deal (January 2020): A temporary de-escalation occurred with the signing
of the Phase One trade agreement, where China committed to purchasing an
additional $200 billion in US goods over two years, including agricultural
products and energy. The US agreed to reduce some tariffs but maintained
most duties. This deal provided short-term relief but did not resolve
underlying issues.
- 2021-2024: Under the Biden
administration, tariffs on Chinese goods were largely retained, with
additional non-tariff measures, such as export controls on advanced
technology. China responded by diversifying its export markets, reducing
reliance on the US from 19% to 14% of its total exports between 2018 and
2023.
- 2025
Escalation:
By April 2025, US tariffs on Chinese imports reached up to 145%, and China
imposed retaliatory tariffs of 125%, effectively making direct bilateral
trade prohibitively expensive. The US introduced “reciprocal” tariffs
based on trade deficits, escalating tensions further. A 90-day tariff
pause was announced on April 9, 2025, but sector-specific tariffs on
steel, aluminum, and automobiles persisted.
Strategic Shifts
The trade dispute evolved from
economic concerns to a broader geopolitical contest. Tariffs became tools for
achieving strategic objectives, such as curbing China’s dominance in critical
sectors like technology and rare earth minerals. The US leveraged the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariff hikes,
while China restricted exports of rare earths, critical for high-tech
industries. This shift reflects a move toward “weaponising” trade policies, as
both nations sought to assert economic and political dominance.
2.
IMPACT
ON GLOBAL MARKETS
Bilateral Trade Impacts
The tariffs significantly reduced
US-China bilateral trade. US imports from China dropped by 12.5% in 2020, and
US exports to China, particularly agricultural products like soybeans, declined
by 50%. By 2025, direct trade between the two nations nearly collapsed under
the weight of reciprocal tariffs exceeding 100%. However, the US trade deficit
with China remained largely unchanged due to macroeconomic factors, such as
relative demand and currency valuation, overshadowing tariff effects.
Global Supply Chain Disruption
The trade war triggered a reconfiguration of global supply
chains. Multinational corporations diversified sourcing to Southeast Asia
(e.g., Vietnam, Indonesia) and Mexico to circumvent tariffs. For instance, US
imports from Mexico increased by nearly $850 million for certain goods in 2018,
offsetting declines from China. Sectors heavily integrated into global value
chains (GVCs), such as electronics and transport equipment, experienced output
declines of 12-16% in high-tariff scenarios.
Regional Trade Dynamics
- North
America:
The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) faced pressure as tariffs
incentivized circumvention through Canada and Mexico. However, new USMCA
content rules for automobiles complicated compliance, impacting the auto
sector.
- Europe: The EU saw increased exports
to both the US and China as trade diversion occurred, but it also faced
risks from Chinese goods redirected from the US market. EU retaliatory
tariffs on US goods, such as motorcycles and whiskey, added complexity.
- Latin
America:
Brazil benefited from increased soybean exports to China, while Mexico saw
opportunities in manufacturing. However, US concerns about China’s
influence in strategic minerals (e.g., lithium) posed risks.
- Asia-Pacific: Southeast Asian nations like
Vietnam gained from trade diversion, but their economic growth remained
tied to US-China relations.
- Middle
East and Africa:
Reduced global demand lowered oil prices, affecting Middle Eastern
budgets, while Africa faced challenges in manufacturing and mineral access
due to US-China competition.
Macroeconomic Effects
The
trade war contributed to a 0.3-0.5% reduction in global GDP, with welfare
losses in the US estimated at 2% under moderate tariff scenarios and up to 4%
with full retaliation. China’s welfare losses hovered around 1.5%. Global trade
contracted by 5.5-8.5%, with GVC-related trade shrinking more significantly.
The tariffs also increased consumer prices and reduced corporate profits,
disproportionately affecting low-income households.
Sectoral Impacts
- Agriculture: US agricultural exports to
China, particularly soybeans, fell sharply, benefiting competitors like
Brazil.
- Manufacturing: Small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) in the US reported a 63% decline in exports due to
tariffs, while Chinese manufacturers adjusted by raising prices or
diversifying markets.
- Technology: Restrictions on technology
exports and rare earth minerals heightened tensions, impacting global
high-tech production.
Financial Market Reactions
The trade war increased market volatility, with global stock
markets declining due to fears of recession. US companies with high exposure to
China saw underperforming stock valuations, particularly after tariff
announcements. Oil prices dropped due to reduced demand, affecting Middle
Eastern economies.
3.
ROLE
OF BILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
Escalation Through Failed
Negotiations
Bilateral trade agreements, such as the Phase One deal,
aimed to de-escalate tensions but often fell short of resolving core issues.
The Phase One agreement (2020) committed China to increased purchases, but
enforcement was weak, and many targets were unmet. The agreement did not
address structural issues like intellectual property theft or state subsidies,
leading to continued mistrust. By 2025, negotiations in Geneva and London
resulted in partial tariff rollbacks, but non-tariff barriers, such as China’s
restrictions on critical minerals and US technology export controls, sustained
tensions.
Strategic Use of Agreements
Both nations used bilateral talks as strategic tools. The US
leveraged tariff threats to extract concessions, while China’s participation in
agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) helped
offset losses by strengthening ties with Asia-Pacific nations. However, the
failure to achieve comprehensive agreements fueled escalations, as seen in the
2025 tariff hikes to 145% (US) and 125% (China).
Impact on Global Trade Architecture
The reliance on bilateral agreements undermined the
multilateral framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The US’s
unilateral tariffs and China’s retaliatory measures challenged WTO rules,
contributing to a shift toward protectionism and regional trade blocs. The WTO
estimated a 0.5% decline in global trade in 2020 due to these disruptions, a
trend that continued into 2025.
4.
TECHNOLOGY
COMPETITION AND RESTRICTIONS
The
escalating technology competition between the United States and China has
become a defining feature of their bilateral relationship, with profound
implications for global economics, national security, and technological
innovation. This rivalry, often framed as a "tech war," spans
critical domains such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence (AI), 5G
networks, and quantum computing. The competition is characterized by a complex
interplay of export controls, investment restrictions, and efforts to achieve
technological self-reliance, with both nations pursuing strategies that balance
economic growth, national security, and geopolitical influence.
Strategic Context and Motivations
The US-China
technology competition is driven by the recognition that technological
supremacy underpins economic prosperity, military power, and global influence.
For the United States, maintaining technological leadership is seen as
essential to preserving its status as a global superpower. This is evident in
policies targeting semiconductors, advanced computing, and clean energy, where
the US has altered its policy environment to counter China's advancements. The
US perceives China's technological rise as a threat to its national security,
particularly due to the potential military applications of AI and other
emerging technologies. For instance, China's AI Chabot DeepSeek, developed
despite US chip export controls, raises concern about its potential use in
military scenarios, such as war game simulations or autonomous systems.
China, on the
other hand, views technological self-reliance as a strategic necessity to
counter US restrictions and ensure economic and military autonomy. President Xi
Jinping has emphasized integrating science, technology, and industry to address
supply chain vulnerabilities, particularly in semiconductors, as highlighted
during the National Science and Technology Awards Conference in June 2024.
China's policies are also driven by a desire to reduce dependence on Western
technology and to project power through technological exports that enable
surveillance and influence, raising concerns about global norms and values.
This
competition is not merely economic but deeply geopolitical, with both nations
aiming to shape global standards and norms. The US seeks to align with
like-minded partners to uphold democratic values, while China's technological
advancements are guided by objectives of social control, international
influence, and military modernization. The result is a trend toward
technological "decoupling," where both nations are actively
separating their technological ecosystems, a process described as reshaping
global dynamics.
Key Mechanisms: Export Controls and
Investment Restrictions
US Restrictions
The United
States has implemented a series of export controls and investment restrictions
to curb China's access to advanced technologies. A notable example is the Trump
administration's April 2025 decision to block Nvidia’s H20 chips, designed to
comply with earlier export rules, from being sold to China. These restrictions
target high-end chips critical for AI and supercomputing, reflecting concerns
about their potential military applications. The US Department of Commerce’s
April 2025 licensing requirements for Nvidia’s H20 and AMD’s MI308 chips
further tightened these controls, impacting companies with significant
financial stakes in China. Nvidia faces a projected $5.5 billion financial hit,
while AMD anticipates up to $800 million in charges, highlighting the economic
costs of these measures.
Additionally,
the Biden administration’s proposed rules in June 2024 to restrict US
investments in Chinese AI, semiconductors, and quantum computing underscore a
broader strategy to limit technology transfers that could threaten national
security. These measures aim to prevent American capital from fueling China's
technological advancements, particularly in areas with dual-use potential.
However, these
restrictions have sparked debate about their efficacy and unintended
consequences. Critics argue that a focus on restrictions over innovation could
undermine US competitiveness. For instance, Valeria Bertacco from the
University of Michigan notes that limiting access to the Chinese market could
reduce R&D funding for US chipmakers, potentially stifling innovation.
Moreover, aggressive restrictions may push companies like Nvidia to relocate
operations abroad, eroding the US’s competitive edge. The Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) emphasizes that export controls are a
"delaying action at best," and winning the AI race requires investment
in talent, education, and infrastructure rather than just restrictions.
Chinese Countermeasures
China has
responded with its own restrictions, particularly on critical minerals
essential for advanced technologies. On April 4, 2025, China imposed export
controls on seven rare earth elements, including dysprosium and terbium,
critical for high-performance magnets used in military systems like F-35 jets.
With China controlling approximately 58% of global rare earth mining capacity
and 89-90% of separation and refining, these restrictions pose a significant
threat to US defense supply chains. This move is seen as a retaliatory
"heads-up" shot, signaling China’s ability to disrupt US supply
chains while leaving room for further escalation.
China is also
investing heavily in domestic innovation to circumvent US restrictions.
Huawei’s introduction of the CloudMatrix 384 Supernode, powered by its Ascend
910C chips, demonstrates efforts to rival Nvidia’s AI capabilities, albeit with
less efficient designs requiring more power. Companies like Tencent, Alibaba,
and ByteDance are stockpiling Nvidia chips to mitigate the impact of export
controls, while DeepSeek’s R1 LLM showcases China’s ability to innovate under
resource constraints, using open-source models to reduce costs.
Impact and Challenges
Economic Impacts
The economic
fallout from these restrictions is significant for both nations. For US
companies, the loss of the Chinese market—a major revenue source—poses
challenges. Nvidia’s 2025 revenue projections indicate a $15-16 billion hit,
while AMD faces a $1.5-1.8 billion reduction, affecting their R&D budgets
and market positions. Conversely, China’s restrictions on rare earths threaten
US industries reliant on these materials, particularly defense and clean energy
sectors.
However, these
measures also spur innovation. China’s DeepSeek LLM, developed with fewer
resources, exemplifies how restrictions can drive efficiency. Similarly,
non-Chinese efforts, such as Australia’s Lynas producing dysprosium in
Malaysia, indicate a global push to diversify supply chains away from China.
Yet, the high costs and complexity of establishing alternative supply chains
highlight the challenges of achieving true technological independence.
National Security and Geopolitical
Implications
The competition
raises critical national security concerns. The US fears that China’s access to
advanced chips could enhance its military capabilities, while China views US
restrictions as an attempt to contain its rise. The dual-use nature of technologies
like AI complicates efforts to delineate sensitive from non-sensitive areas, as
noted by Brookings scholars. The US’s coalitional approach, involving allies
like Japan and the Netherlands, strengthens its position but risks alienating
partners if restrictions are perceived as overly aggressive.
China’s export
controls on rare earths underscore its leverage in critical supply chains,
potentially disrupting US military production. However, the global availability
of rare earths, coupled with efforts by countries like Australia to develop
alternative sources, suggests that China’s dominance is not absolute. The
competition also extends to global standards-setting, where China’s push for
surveillance-enabling technologies challenges democratic norms.
Innovation and Talent Dynamics
Both
nations face challenges in sustaining innovation. The US benefits from its open
innovation system and ability to attract global talent, but restrictive visa
policies could undermine this advantage. Over 57% of US doctoral candidates in
computer science are foreign-born, and policies limiting their stay could drive
talent to other countries. China, meanwhile, is cultivating domestic talent and
fostering public-private partnerships to accelerate innovation, as emphasized
by Xi Jinping. However, its centralized approach may limit the flexibility
needed for disruptive innovation compared to the US’s market-driven model.
5.
SUPPLY
CHINA SECURITY AND DISRUPTION
The US-China relationship is a
critical determinant of global supply chain dynamics, given the two nations'
roles as the world’s largest economies and major trading partners. Escalating
geopolitical tensions, trade policies, and strategic competition have exposed
vulnerabilities in global supply chains, prompting both nations to prioritize
security and resilience.
Key
Drivers of Supply Chain Disruption
Trade Tensions and Tariffs
The US-China trade war, intensified by reciprocal tariffs,
has significantly disrupted global supply chains. In 2025, the US imposed
tariffs starting at 10% on Chinese imports on February 4, escalating to 20% by
March 4, and peaking at 145% on certain goods by April 12, citing concerns such
as the opioid crisis. China retaliated with tariffs up to 125% on US goods,
though a temporary truce reduced these to 30% and 10%, respectively, until
August 12, 2025. These tariffs have increased costs and delays across
industries, notably affecting US sectors like automotive and beverages, with
companies like Ford and MillerCoors projecting significant financial losses due
to higher raw material costs.
The suspension of the US "de minimis" exemption
for low-value shipments (under $800) from China and Hong Kong, effective May 2,
2025, and extended globally by August 29, 2025, has further disrupted
e-commerce platforms like Shein and Temu, leading to a 35% drop in mail traffic
from China. These measures reflect a broader trend of protectionism, with both
nations imposing trade barriers to reduce economic interdependence, reshaping
global trade flows.
Geopolitical Competition and Decoupling
Geopolitical rivalry has driven efforts toward economic
"decoupling," particularly in high-tech and nationally critical
sectors. The US has implemented export controls to limit China's access to
advanced technologies, such as semiconductors and chip-making equipment, while
China has countered with export restrictions on critical minerals like gallium
and germanium, which it dominates (98% of raw gallium and 68% of germanium
production). These restrictions threaten short-term volatility in global
semiconductor and electronics supply chains, as global stockpiles of these
minerals may last only two to three months without Chinese export approvals.
Under the "strategic competition" scenario, both
nations aim to secure supply chains for critical goods like semiconductors,
batteries, and telecommunications equipment while maintaining trade in less
sensitive sectors. The "decoupling" scenario envisions a broader
reduction in interdependence, with significant implications for global supply
chain ecosystems. For instance, moving semiconductor production requires
relocating related chemical supply chains due to specialized transportation
needs, adding complexity and cost.
Critical Minerals Dependency
China’s dominance in processing critical minerals poses a
significant vulnerability for the US. While mining is geographically dispersed
(e.g., Australia for lithium, DRC for cobalt), China controls the processing of
key minerals:
- Lithium: China processes 65% of global
lithium into battery-grade materials.
- Cobalt: China refines 74% of the
world’s cobalt, despite the DRC’s 73% mining share.
- Natural
Graphite:
China holds 100% of the processing capacity for battery-grade graphite.
- Rare
Earth Elements (REEs):
China accounts for 90% of global REE processing, despite 70% of mining.
The US relies heavily on imports,
with 100% net import reliance for 12 critical minerals and over 50% for 28
others, including gallium and graphite. This dependency creates risks for
industries critical to national security, such as defense (e.g., REEs for
missile systems, gallium for radar) and energy (e.g., lithium for EV
batteries).
Forced Labor and Regulatory Risks
The US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) has
increased scrutiny of Chinese-linked supply chains, particularly in Xinjiang,
where forced labor is documented. As of June 2023, the US Customs and Border
Protection detained 4,651 shipments worth $1.64 billion, with 872 denied entry.
Notably, over half of detained shipments originated from Malaysia and Vietnam,
indicating indirect supply chain risks as Chinese goods are rerouted through
third countries. The UFLPA entity list continues to expand, with Everstream
Analytics identifying over 400 companies with potential forced labor links,
suggesting further disruptions.
Other Disruptions
Beyond trade and geopolitics, supply chains face disruptions
from pandemics, natural disasters, and logistical challenges. The COVID-19
pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in just-in-time inventory models, while
geopolitical events like Brexit and the Russia-Ukraine war have compounded
pressures. These factors amplify the need for resilience, as companies face
delays, cost increases, and supply shortages.
Impacts on Global Supply Chains
Economic and Operational Costs
- Increased
Costs:
Tariffs and trade restrictions have raised costs for industries reliant on
Chinese imports. For example, US solar manufacturers face higher costs for
Chinese photovoltaic cells, delaying renewable energy projects.
- Delays
and Inefficiencies:
Rerouting supply chains through countries like Vietnam (up 30% in exports)
and Indonesia (up 25%) introduces inefficiencies, as these nations lack
China’s scale and infrastructure.
- Trade
Imbalance:
The US trade deficit with China was $295 billion in 2024, with $438
billion in imports versus $143 billion in exports, highlighting US
reliance on Chinese goods.
Sector-Specific Impacts
- Automotive: Tariffs on steel and aluminum
have increased costs for US automakers, with Ford projecting significant
losses.
- Technology/Semiconductors: US export controls and
China’s mineral export bans threaten chip supply chains. Taiwan’s 92%
share of sub-10nm chip production adds further risk due to its
geopolitical sensitivity.
- Solar
Industry:
US reliance on Chinese components like polysilicon (linked to forced
labor) has led to project delays and cost increases.
- Agriculture: China’s shift to alternative
soybean suppliers like Brazil has disrupted US agricultural exports,
though Brazil struggles to meet demand.
Global Consequences
The US-China decoupling has global ripple effects, prompting
other nations to adapt. For instance, Southeast Asian countries benefit from
rerouted Chinese exports, while European and Asian competitors gain market
share as US and Chinese firms face trade barriers. However, global supply
chains face increased complexity, as companies navigate new trade corridors and
compliance requirements.
Strategies for Supply Chain
Resilience
US Strategies
The
US has adopted a multi-pronged approach to reduce reliance on China and enhance
supply chain security:
- Onshoring: Incentives like the Inflation
Reduction Act tax credits encourage domestic production of critical
minerals like lithium. However, only 8% of US companies are actively
reshoring manufacturing due to high costs.
- Friend-Shoring: The US is diversifying sourcing
to allies like Australia, Canada, and South Korea for minerals and
semiconductors.
- Recycling: Programs to recycle critical
minerals, such as lithium and cobalt, aim to reduce import dependency.
- Technological
Innovation:
Investments in alternative chip technologies (e.g., gallium nitride) and
advanced manufacturing aim to bolster domestic capabilities.
- Legislative
Tools: The
Energy Act of 2020 and Defense Production Act support critical mineral
production, while the UFLPA enforces supply chain transparency.
Despite
these efforts, challenges remain, including limited domestic processing
capacity and high costs of reshoring.
Chinese Strategies
China
has leveraged its manufacturing dominance and government support to enhance
supply chain resilience:
- Vertical
Integration:
Chinese firms invest in vertically integrated systems, controlling
production from raw materials to finished goods, particularly in solar and
battery industries.
- Domestic
Investment:
The National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund ("Big Fund
II") has allocated $3.5 billion to indigenous chipmakers to counter
US export controls.
- Alternative
Markets:
China has increased exports through Southeast Asia to bypass US tariffs,
with Vietnam and Indonesia seeing significant trade growth.
- Infrastructure
Development:
Investments in transportation and raw material access bolster China’s
manufacturing ecosystem.
China’s
approach benefits from economies of scale and state-backed initiatives, giving
it an edge in resilience over the US.
Corporate Strategies
Businesses
are adapting to disruptions through:
- Diversification: Companies are shifting to
"just-in-case" inventory models, increasing stockpiles to buffer
disruptions.
- Nearshoring/Reshoring: Some firms are relocating
production closer to home markets, though high costs limit adoption.
- Technology
Adoption:
Tools like Optilogic’s Cosmic Frog help model and mitigate supply chain
risks.
- Compliance: Enhanced due diligence
addresses forced labor risks, though indirect supply chains (e.g., via
Malaysia) remain challenging.
6.
IMPACT
ON GLOBAL MARKETS AND INVESTMENTS
The escalating tensions between the United States and China,
the world’s two largest economies, have profound implications for global
markets and investments. These tensions, rooted in trade disputes,
technological rivalry, geopolitical strategies, and ideological differences,
have reshaped economic dynamics, disrupted global supply chains, and introduced
significant uncertainties for investors worldwide. This report examines the
multifaceted impacts of US-China tensions on global markets and investments,
supported by recent references.
Trade War and Tariffs
The US-China trade war, which intensified in 2018, has
significantly disrupted global markets through the imposition of tariffs and
retaliatory measures. The US introduced a 10% tariff on Chinese imports in
early 2025, citing concerns such as China's role in the fentanyl crisis, while
China responded with 15% tariffs on US coal and liquefied natural gas (LNG) and
10% tariffs on crude oil and other exports. These measures have increased costs
for businesses and consumers, reduced market access, and heightened
uncertainty, particularly in sectors like technology, agriculture, and
automotive. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that these tariffs
could reduce global GDP by approximately 0.3% in the short term, with half of
this impact stemming from diminished business and market confidence.
The trade war has also prompted a reassessment of economic
interdependence, forcing companies to diversify supply chains to mitigate
tariff-related risks. For instance, firms in technology and manufacturing have
shifted production to alternative markets like Southeast Asia, India, and
Mexico, reconfiguring global production networks. This shift has created
opportunities for emerging economies but has also led to reduced international
trade volumes and economic growth.
Supply Chain Disruptions
US-China tensions have disrupted global supply chains,
particularly affecting multinational corporations reliant on integrated
production networks. The uncertainty caused by tariffs and trade policies has
led companies to relocate operations, fostering the emergence of alternative
manufacturing hubs. For example, the US-China Business Council (USCBC) reported
that only 48% of US companies plan to invest in China in 2025, down from 80% in
2024, reflecting a strategic pivot away from China due to tariff concerns and geopolitical
volatility. These disruptions have reduced business confidence and altered
investment patterns, impacting global economic growth.
The semiconductor industry, critical to modern technology,
has been particularly affected. The US CHIPS Act, enacted to reduce reliance on
Chinese and Taiwanese semiconductor production, underscores the strategic
importance of this sector in the US-China rivalry. However, the
capital-intensive nature of semiconductor manufacturing means that achieving
self-reliance will take time, leaving global markets vulnerable to supply chain
shocks.
Technology and Intellectual Property
Technological rivalry is a cornerstone of US-China tensions,
with both nations vying for dominance in areas like artificial intelligence,
cybersecurity, and semiconductors. The US has implemented export controls and
investment restrictions to protect intellectual property and limit technology
transfers to China. For instance, President Biden’s 2023 executive order
intensified regulations on US technology exports with potential military
applications. These measures have strained economic relations and hindered
collaboration in emerging technologies, potentially slowing global innovation.
China’s restrictions on strategic metals like gallium and
germanium, critical for solar cells and semiconductors, further complicate the
global tech supply chain. These restrictions, a response to US export controls,
have unintended consequences for climate technology, increasing global
emissions by 0.3%-1.8% due to supply chain reallocations.
Investment and Capital Flows
US-China tensions have significantly altered global
investment patterns. Heightened regulatory scrutiny and geopolitical concerns
have reduced foreign direct investment (FDI) between the two nations. The USCBC
survey noted a decline in US companies’ optimism about China’s economic growth,
with many scaling back investments due to tariffs and policy uncertainty.
Similarly, Chinese investments in Europe face increased scrutiny, with over 60%
of deals in 2022 facing objections from countries like the UK, Germany, Italy,
and Denmark due to national security concerns.
These shifts have redirected capital flows to other regions,
particularly Asia, benefiting emerging economies like Brazil, which has
capitalized on China’s demand for soybeans and iron ore. However, this
redirection introduces volatility in global financial markets, affecting
economic stability and development.
Geopolitical and Market Implications
The US-China rivalry extends beyond economics, influencing
geopolitical alliances and global governance structures. Countries are
navigating a delicate balance to maintain economic ties with both powers while
avoiding entanglement in their disputes. This dynamic has led to shifts in
regional power dynamics, with nations forming strategic partnerships to
safeguard their interests.
Financial markets have reacted strongly to these tensions.
The S&P 500 experienced a 0.72% decline following the 2025 tariff
announcements, reflecting market sensitivity to trade policy developments. The
forex market, particularly the USD/CNH pair, has seen increased volatility,
creating both challenges and opportunities for traders. Despite these
disruptions, China’s market remains “too large to ignore,” with 28% of US
companies surveyed by USCBC stating they cannot remain globally competitive
without a presence in China.
Environmental and Climate Impacts
US-China trade tensions also have environmental
repercussions. The reallocation of global supply chains has increased greenhouse
gas emissions, particularly in the semiconductor, solar, and electric vehicle
(EV) sectors. China’s dominance in solar cell production (80%) and lithium
refining (60%) means that trade restrictions could hinder global climate change
mitigation efforts. While diplomatic efforts, such as US Secretary of State
Antony Blinken’s 2023 talks with Chinese officials, show potential for
cooperation on climate issues, ongoing tensions threaten to undermine these
efforts.
7.
RESPONSES
FROM OTHER NATIONS AND REGIONS
Southeast Asia: Balancing Strategic
Autonomy and Economic Interests
Southeast Asian
nations, particularly members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN), have adopted a cautious approach, striving to maintain strategic
autonomy while deepening economic ties with both the US and China. President Xi
Jinping’s April 2025 tour of Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia highlighted
China’s push to bolster regional influence through trade, infrastructure, and
diplomatic agreements. For instance, Vietnam signed 45 cooperation agreements
with China, Malaysia 31, and Cambodia 37, covering sectors like infrastructure,
technology, and defense. However, these countries remain wary of overreliance
on Beijing due to unresolved South China Sea disputes and China’s assertive
maritime posture, which delays agreements like the Code of Conduct.
ASEAN nations
like Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia actively pursue a hedging strategy,
diversifying ties with the US, the European Union, and Japan to avoid
entanglement in the US-China rivalry. Posts on X reflect this sentiment, noting
that Asia’s middle powers hedge between the US and China, welcoming Chinese
investments but viewing Beijing with suspicion due to its regional ambitions.
The US maintains influence through security partnerships, particularly with the
Philippines, where it counters China’s actions in the South China Sea via
freedom of navigation operations.
Indo-Pacific Allies (Japan, South Korea, Australia): Strengthening US
Alignment
US allies in
the Indo-Pacific, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, have leaned toward
Washington due to security concerns over China’s military buildup and regional
assertiveness. The US has deepened alliances through coordinated efforts to
counter China’s influence, such as joint military exercises and increased
defense spending, as emphasized by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the
2025 Shangri-La Dialogue. However, China’s military drills near these countries
and warnings that US bases in Japan and South Korea could be targeted in a
Taiwan conflict have heightened regional tensions.
Despite
aligning with the US, these nations face dilemmas. China’s economic leverage,
as a major trading partner, compels them to maintain diplomatic and economic
engagement with Beijing. For example, China’s joint naval patrols with Russia
in the Arctic and near Alaskan airspace demonstrate its growing power
projection, pressuring these allies to balance economic ties with security
commitments to the US. Posts on X highlight skepticism about US reliability,
given its competing global commitments, which introduces ambiguity in its
deterrence strategy.
Europe: Prioritizing Strategic Autonomy
The European
Union (EU) has adopted a nuanced stance, seeking to avoid full alignment with
the US while addressing concerns about China’s growing influence. The EU has
faced pressure from Washington to align against China, particularly on trade
and technology restrictions, but has prioritized strategic autonomy. European
nations are wary of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and its investments in
Africa and Latin America, which challenge the US-led liberal order. However,
economic interdependence with China, especially in supply chains, limits
Europe’s willingness to fully decouple.
The EU’s
response to US-China tensions is shaped by its own security priorities, such as
the war in Ukraine and Middle Eastern instability, which divert attention from
the Indo-Pacific. While NATO has increased focus on the Indo-Pacific, European
nations prefer diplomatic engagement with China on issues like climate change,
where cooperation remains viable despite tensions.
Global South: Leveraging Opportunities from Both Powers
Countries in
the Global South, including those in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia,
view US-China tensions as an opportunity to diversify partnerships. China’s
Belt and Road Initiative has integrated many of these nations into global
markets, positioning Beijing as a key economic partner. For instance, China’s
investments in infrastructure and trade agreements with countries like Cambodia
and Pakistan enhance its influence. Meanwhile, the US counters with initiatives
like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, though its impact is limited compared
to China’s financial commitments.
Many Global
South nations, including Brazil, India, and South Africa, resist choosing
sides, as evidenced by their reluctance to fully align with US sanctions
against China. This hedging strategy allows them to benefit from Chinese
investments while maintaining ties with the US and other powers like the EU and
Japan. However, China’s support for authoritarian regimes and its role in
transnational crime, such as scam compounds in Myanmar, raise concerns about
its destabilizing influence.
Russia, Iran, North Korea: Forming an “Axis of Upheaval”
The alignment
of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, described as an “Axis of Upheaval,”
poses a significant challenge to the US, though it is not a formal alliance.
This group collaborates bilaterally to counter US influence, with China
providing economic lifelines to Russia and Iran to sustain their resilience
against Western sanctions. For example, China’s continued import of Iranian oil
despite US sanctions and its joint military drills with Russia demonstrate
strategic coordination.
However,
China’s response to the 2025 Iran-US/Israel conflict was notably restrained,
reflecting its pragmatic approach to avoid direct confrontation with the US.
This restraint aligns with Beijing’s broader strategy of patience, expecting US
economic and diplomatic overreach to weaken its global position.
Taiwan: A Central Flashpoint
Taiwan remains
the most critical flashpoint in US-China tensions, with global responses
heavily influenced by its strategic importance. The US has increased arms sales
and diplomatic engagement with Taipei, while China has intensified military
drills and nonmilitary measures to pressure Taiwan toward unification. Posts on
X suggest that few countries would offer significant aid to either side in a
potential Taiwan conflict, with most preferring neutrality to avoid escalation.
Regional powers
like Japan and Australia are more likely to support the US due to security
alliances, but their involvement would be limited to avoid provoking China.
ASEAN nations, despite economic ties with China, are cautious about supporting
Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea, which indirectly affects their stance
on Taiwan.
Global Economic and Trade Implications
US-China trade
tensions, marked by reciprocal tariffs in April 2025, have global economic
repercussions. The US lowered tariffs from 145% to 30%, and China from 125% to
10% for a 90-day period, but progress has stalled. This trade war pressures
third countries to realign supply chains, with ASEAN nations like Vietnam and
Malaysia positioning themselves as alternative manufacturing hubs. However,
these countries remain dependent on Chinese inputs, complicating US decoupling
efforts.
The global
economy faces disruptions from these tensions, with supply chain pressures and
political frictions affecting economic stability. China’s push for self-reliance
in semiconductors and critical minerals counters US export controls, further
intensifying competition.
8.
LONG -TERM CONSEQUENCES FOR GLOBALISATION
The escalating tensions between the
United States and China, primarily driven by trade wars, tariffs, and
geopolitical rivalry, are reshaping the global economic landscape. These
tensions, rooted in issues like trade imbalances, intellectual property
disputes, and strategic competition, have profound implications for globalisation.
Fragmentation of Global Supply Chains
The US-China trade war, marked by significant tariff hikes
(e.g., US tariffs on Chinese goods reaching 20% in 2025 and China's retaliatory
tariffs on US agricultural products), is accelerating the reconfiguration of
global supply chains. Companies are increasingly diversifying away from China,
with manufacturing shifting to countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, and Mexico.
This trend, often termed "decoupling," reduces economic interdependence
between the US and China but increases costs and complexity for businesses.
- Impact
on Globalization:
The unitary globalized economy, characterized by seamless supply chains,
is giving way to a fragmented system with regionalized production hubs.
This shift undermines the efficiency gains of globalization, as companies
face higher costs and logistical challenges.
- Example: US automakers and electronics
manufacturers are facing higher import costs, prompting production shifts
that disrupt established global value chains (GVCs).
Erosion of Multilateral Trade Frameworks
The US-China trade conflict is straining multilateral
institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO). China's retaliatory
measures, such as tariffs on US goods and export controls on critical minerals,
are seen as violating WTO regulations, while the US's use of unilateral tariffs
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) bypasses
traditional trade dispute mechanisms.
- Impact
on Globalization:
The weakening of WTO authority and the rise of protectionist policies
threaten the rules-based trading order established post-World War II. This
could lead to a more fragmented global trade system, where bilateral or
regional agreements replace multilateral cooperation, reducing global
trade efficiency.
- WTO
Perspective:
WTO chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala warned that US-China trade tensions,
impacting 3% of global trade, could severely damage the global economic
outlook, particularly for least developed nations.
Rise of Economic Blocs and Regionalization
As US-China tensions escalate, both nations are forging
stronger ties with alternative partners, leading to the formation of distinct
economic blocs. China is increasing trade with Brazil, Argentina, and the EU,
while the US is strengthening alliances with Indo-Pacific nations like India
and Japan.
- Impact
on Globalization:
This realignment fosters a multipolar economic order, where countries
align with either the US or China, reducing the interconnectedness that
defines globalization. Emerging economies may benefit from new trade
opportunities, but the overall cohesion of global markets is weakened.
- Example: China's Belt and Road
Initiative continues to expand its influence in Africa and Latin America,
countering US-led trade initiatives.
Technological Decoupling and Innovation Challenges
The US-China rivalry is intensifying in technology, with the
US imposing export controls on semiconductors and China restricting rare earth
exports. This "tech decoupling" is creating separate technological
ecosystems, with bifurcated standards and supply chains.
- Impact
on Globalization:
The global tech industry, a cornerstone of modern globalization, faces
increased costs and reduced innovation due to restricted knowledge sharing
and market access. Long-term, this could slow global technological
progress and create inefficiencies in industries reliant on global
standards, such as 5G and AI.
- Example: The US's restrictions on
Chinese firms like Huawei and China's retaliatory export controls on
critical minerals like tungsten are reshaping global tech supply chains.
Economic and Welfare Losses
Simulations suggest significant welfare losses due to the
trade war, with the US facing a 2% welfare decline under current scenarios and
up to 4% if tariffs escalate further. China faces losses around 1.5%, while
global welfare could drop by 2%. These losses stem from reduced trade volumes,
higher consumer prices, and disrupted GVCs.
- Impact
on Globalization:
Reduced economic output and consumer purchasing power weaken global
demand, slowing the growth of international trade. This could lead to a
prolonged period of deglobalization, where economic nationalism
overshadows global cooperation.
- Consumer
Impact:
Tariffs are driving inflation, with US consumer prices for goods like
electronics and apparel rising by 22-25% due to increased import costs.
Geopolitical Tensions and Global Instability
The trade war is not just economic but also geopolitical,
with both nations using trade as a tool for strategic dominance. The US frames
tariffs as a response to security concerns, while China leverages its economic
influence to counter US policies.
- Impact
on Globalization:
Heightened geopolitical tensions discourage cross-border investment and
cooperation, further fragmenting the global economy. The risk of
escalation into broader conflicts, particularly in flashpoints like Taiwan
or the South China Sea, could destabilize global markets and deter
globalization.
- Example: China's suspension of rare
earth exports to the US, critical for defense and tech industries,
underscores the weaponization of trade.
Opportunities for Emerging Economies
While US-China tensions disrupt globalization, they create
opportunities for other nations. Countries like India, Vietnam, and Brazil are
benefiting from redirected trade and investment as companies seek alternatives
to Chinese manufacturing.
- Impact
on Globalization:
While this may diversify global trade networks, it also risks creating uneven
development, where some nations gain while others, particularly least
developed countries, suffer from reduced global trade volumes.
- Example: India's growing role in
US-led Indo-Pacific strategies highlights its potential to fill gaps left
by reduced US-China trade.
9.
ROLE
OF POLICY AND DIPLOMACY
The U.S.-China relationship is
characterized by a complex interplay of competition and cooperation, driven by
economic rivalry, military posturing, ideological differences, and territorial
disputes. Policy decisions and diplomatic efforts are central to managing these
tensions, as they shape perceptions, signal intentions, and establish
frameworks for interaction.
Policy Signaling and Misperceptions
Policy signaling is a critical mechanism through which the
U.S. and China communicate their intentions, particularly during crises.
Effective signaling can reduce misunderstandings, while missteps can exacerbate
tensions.
U.S. and Chinese Signaling Dynamics
- U.S.
Signaling:
The U.S. employs a decentralized approach to signaling, often resulting in
mixed messages. For instance, during the 2022 Pelosi visit to Taiwan,
described as the "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis," statements from
U.S. officials, including President Biden, were sometimes aimed at
domestic audiences but interpreted by China as provocative signals of
support for Taiwan's independence. This lack of centralized control can
lead to misperceptions, as Chinese policymakers may struggle to discern
official U.S. policy from off-the-cuff remarks.
- Chinese
Signaling:
China's centralized foreign policy apparatus ensures consistent messaging
across public channels. Deviations, such as Hu Xijin's 2022 tweet
suggesting military action to prevent Pelosi's visit, can be significant
"tells" but are often misinterpreted by U.S. analysts due to
differing political cultures. China's signals often escalate deliberately,
from diplomatic warnings to military demonstrations, as seen in the
suspension of bilateral cooperation post-Pelosi visit.
- Misperceptions: Both sides struggle to
interpret each other's signals accurately. The U.S. tends to
compartmentalize Chinese actions as discrete, while China views U.S.
actions as part of a broader strategy to contain its rise. For example,
China perceived the Pelosi visit as a deliberate escalation, while the
U.S. saw China's response as disproportionate, highlighting a gap in
mutual understanding.
Components of Effective Signaling
Effective signaling requires clear, consistent messages
delivered by authoritative messengers. To mitigate risks:
- Clarity
and Consistency:
Both nations should prioritize unambiguous messaging to avoid
misinterpretation. The U.S. could benefit from more centralized
coordination, while China should ensure its signals are not overly
escalatory.
- Trusted
Channels:
Sustaining regular official talks and track-two dialogues is essential to
build trust and reduce the likelihood of miscalculations. The breakdown in
military-to-military dialogue, as noted in 2025 analyses, heightens
escalation risks.
- Cultural
Awareness:
Understanding each other's political cultures is crucial. China's
sensitivity to perceived violations of sovereignty, particularly regarding
Taiwan, contrasts with the U.S.'s focus on domestic political dynamics.
Economic Policies and Trade Tensions
Economic policies, particularly trade and technology
restrictions, have significantly contributed to U.S.-China tensions.
Trade War and Tariffs
- Origins: The U.S.-China trade war,
initiated during the Trump administration, marked a shift toward
protectionism, with tariffs imposed on Chinese goods to address trade
imbalances and intellectual property theft. China retaliated with
counter-tariffs, disrupting global supply chains.
- Current
Dynamics:
In 2025, the Trump administration's renewed focus on tariffs, including a
proposed 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican goods, reflects a broader
"strategic consolidation" approach that indirectly targets
China's economic influence. China's resilience, rooted in its role as a
global manufacturing hub, has allowed it to weather these pressures, but
escalating sanctions risk a "negative-sum game" where both sides
suffer.
- Diplomatic
Opportunities:
Analysts suggest potential for trade deals, such as tariff reductions for
increased Chinese market access or commitments to purchase U.S. energy, to
de-escalate tensions. However, Trump's unpredictable negotiation tactics
necessitate caution from China.
Technology and Cybersecurity
- Technological
Rivalry:
The race for supremacy in AI, 5G, and quantum computing has intensified
tensions. U.S. sanctions on Chinese tech firms like Huawei, citing
cybersecurity concerns, have prompted China to pursue technological
autonomy, reshaping its role from a consumer to a competitor in high-tech
markets.
- Diplomatic
Implications:
Agreements on AI governance or intellectual property protection could
reduce tensions, but mutual distrust complicates negotiations. China's
advancements in technologies like the Beidou Navigation System and
DeepSeek underscore its growing self-sufficiency, potentially escalating
competition if not addressed diplomatically.
Military Strategies and Regional Flashpoints
Military
policies and posturing in regions like the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait
are significant drivers of tension.
South China Sea
- U.S.
Strategy:
The U.S. conducts freedom of navigation operations to challenge China's territorial
claims, escalating tensions. These operations signal resolve but risk
miscalculation, as China views them as provocations.
- China's
Approach:
China's "effective control" framework emphasizes managing
escalation through graduated responses, from diplomatic protests to
military exercises. However, its belief in controlling crises may lead to
overconfidence, increasing the risk of unintended conflict.
- Diplomatic
Solutions:
Multilateral dialogues involving ASEAN nations and middle powers like
Australia could de-escalate tensions by fostering agreements on maritime
rights and resource sharing.
Taiwan
- U.S.
Policy:
U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and high-profile visits, such as Pelosi's in
2022, signal support for Taiwan's autonomy, provoking strong Chinese
reactions. The U.S. maintains strategic ambiguity on Taiwan, which China
interprets as wavering on the "one-China" policy.
- China's
Stance:
China prefers peaceful reunification but has not ruled out military
action. The absence of a clear timetable reduces the likelihood of
immediate conflict, but escalating rhetoric and military exercises
heighten tensions.
- Diplomatic
Mitigation:
Encouraging backchannel talks between Beijing and Taipei, alongside
U.S.-China dialogues, could clarify intentions and reduce the risk of a
crisis spiraling out of control.
Educational Exchanges as Soft Power
Educational
exchanges have historically served as a diplomatic tool to foster mutual
understanding, but their decline has exacerbated tensions.
- Decline
in Exchanges:
The suspension of programs like Fulbright in 2020 and a drop in American
students studying in China (from 11,000 in 2019 to 800 in 2024) have
reduced opportunities for cultural empathy. Conversely, nearly 300,000
Chinese students study in the U.S., highlighting an imbalance.
- Diplomatic
Potential:
Reviving programs like Fulbright, focusing on less contentious areas like
environmental science, could rebuild trust. China's invitation of 50,000
American students over five years signals openness to such initiatives.
- Policy
Recommendations:
Legislation like the proposed "Restoring Fulbright Exchanges with
China and Hong Kong Act" could reinvigorate exchanges, fostering
long-term relationships that mitigate ideological divides. Grassroots
initiatives, such as language partnerships, could complement formal
programs.
Multilateral Diplomacy and Middle Powers
Middle
powers and international institutions play a crucial role in moderating
U.S.-China tensions.
- Role of
Middle Powers:
Nations like Australia, Canada, and the EU can facilitate dialogue and
propose neutral frameworks for cooperation. Australia's "middle power
diplomacy" seeks to balance relations with both the U.S. and China,
promoting stability in the Indo-Pacific.
- International
Institutions:
Reforming organizations like the WTO to address issues like state
subsidies and intellectual property theft could provide structured
pathways for de-escalation. The UN also plays a role in fostering
political will for conflict prevention.
- Challenges: The U.S.'s shift toward a
nationalist, transactional foreign policy under Trump may undermine
multilateral efforts, while China's focus on initiatives like the Belt and
Road Initiative strengthens its global influence, potentially at odds with
U.S. interests.
Balancing Deterrence and Reassurance
The
U.S. faces the challenge of balancing deterrence (e.g., military buildups,
alliances) with reassurance (e.g., diplomatic clarity, economic cooperation) to
avoid a security dilemma.
- Deterrence
Risks:
Strengthening military postures in the Indo-Pacific and deepening
alliances (e.g., with Japan, India) signal resolve but can appear
provocative to China, fueling a cycle of escalation.
- Reassurance
Strategies:
Diplomatic clarity, such as reaffirming the "one-China" policy,
and cooperation in areas like climate change (e.g., the 2021 U.S.-China
Joint Statement) can build trust. Restoring military-to-military hotlines
is critical to prevent miscalculations.
- Middle
Ground:
A strategy of "restraint and resolve," combining diplomatic
flexibility with long-term investments in U.S. capabilities, could
stabilize relations. Cooperation in less contentious regions, like the
Middle East, where interests align, offers opportunities for reassurance.
Citations
https://www.csis.org/analysis/advancing-us-china-coordination-amid-strategic-competition-emerging-playbook
accessed on 12/08/2025
https://www.fpri.org/article/2025/06/balancing-acts-deterrence-and-reassurance-in-us-china-strategy/
accessed on 13/05.2025
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/will-china-escalate accessed on 13/08/2025
https://time.com/7290272/china-united-states-conflict-taiwan-pete-hegseth-threat-comments/ accessed on 14/08/2025
http://en.chinadiplomacy.org.cn/2025-07/17/content_117982984.shtml
accessed on 14/08/2025
https://www.everstream.ai/risk-centers/global-tariff-supply-chain-impact-u-s-china-trade-tensions-disrupt-key-sectors/
accessed on 14/08/2025
https://www.faf.ae/home/2025/2/28/the-escalation-of-us-china-trade-tensions-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-trumps-2025-tariff-policies
accessed on 13/08/2025
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/tariff-impacts-us-companies-cut-investments-china-record-lows/
accessed on 13/08/2025
https://www.faf.ae/home/2025/2/28/the-escalation-of-us-china-trade-tensions-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-trumps-2025-tariff-policies
accessed on 14/08/2025
Trade Titans: The Impact of the
US-China Trade War on Global Economics, business.cornell.edu
US companies cut investments in
China to record lows, www.weforum.org https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/tariff-impacts-us-companies-cut-investments-china-record-lows/
US-China Trade Tensions: New Tariffs
Impact Global Markets, www.ig.com https://www.ig.com/en/news-and-trade-ideas/how-new-us-china-trade-tensions-are-affecting-global-markets-250204
The Global Economic Effects of
Ongoing Tensions between the United States of America and China, wuab.org
US-China Trade Tensions To Impact
The Environment And Geopolitics, www.forbes.com https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/10/10/us-china-trade-tensions-to-impact-the-environment-and-geopolitics/
The impact of the US-China tensions
on FDI dynamics in emerging economies, www.sciencedirect.com https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612325005185
The Impact of US-China Trade
Tensions, www.imf.org https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2019/05/23/blog-the-impact-of-us-china-trade-tensions
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/the-united-states-china-and-economic-fragmentation/
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/how-is-geopolitical-fragmentation-reshaping-us-foreign-direct-investment-20250410.html
https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WEO/2023/April/English/ch4.ashx
Deloitte Insights, "Supply
chain resilience in the face of geopolitical risks"
The Global Treasurer, "US &
China Decoupling pt2: Reshaping Global Supply Chains"
SCW Magazine, "Trade
Disruptions Set to Test Resilience of US and Chinese Supply Chains"
CTI Forward, "US-China trade
war: explanation and impact on the supply chain"
Everstream Analytics,
"U.S.-China tensions impact supply chains"
GovFacts, "Critical Minerals:
US Strategy to Break China's Supply Chain Dominance"
TradeCouncil, "The Impact of
Ongoing U.S.-China Trade Tensions on Global Supply Chains"
China Tariff Battle: How US Actions
Impact Global Trade? - thingscope.cs.columbia.edu
Roaring tariffs: The global impact
of the 2025 US trade war - cepr.org
Tracking tariffs: Key moments in the
US-China trade dispute - www.weforum.org
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/trumps-us-china-trade-tariffs-timeline/
US vs. China: Analyzing the Shifts
in Global Trade Dynamics - www.globaltrademag.com https://www.globaltrademag.com/us-vs-china-analyzing-the-shifts-in-global-trade-dynamics/
The Impact of US-China Trade
Tensions - www.imf.org https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2019/05/23/blog-the-impact-of-us-china-trade-tensions
The U.S.-China Trade War: China’s
Challenge in Navigating U.S. Tariffs - trendsresearch.org
Weaponising Tariffs: The US-China
Trade Clash and Global Fallout - atlasinstitute.org
The US-China Trade War and Global
Reallocations - economics.ucla.edu
USA-China Tariffs: the impact of the
trade war on global markets - www.coface.us
https://www.coface.us/news-economy-and-business-insights/the-us-china-trade-war-has-entered-uncharted-waters
US trade conflict: Potential
economic implications for the US and the - www.sciencedirect.com
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161893825000638
China–United States trade war -
en.wikipedia.org
China-US trade friction and welfare:
The role of regional trade - www.sciencedirect.com https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264999322001237
US and China agree to work on
extending the tariff pause deadline - abcnews.go.com