
ASEAN and the China-US Trade War
Describe the regional vibe at the recent ASEAN Summit toward U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff threats.
One of the greatest preoccupations of regional leaders since April 2, 2025 has been with the alarming levels of rising protectionism and disruptive actions seeking to undermine the open, free, multilateral trading system. Southeast Asia has benefited from an open, free, and fair global order for many decades since ASEAN countries' independence. An open and free global trading system, undergirded by robust and strong international law, has served small states well. Trade is ASEAN's lifeline. Without trade, ASEAN cannot maintain its relevance with the major partners. Because of these concerns, ASEAN leaders delivered a statement calling out unilateral and retaliatory actions that risk fragmenting the global economic order. They further instructed the officials to track the risks of trade diversions and engage in negotiations with partners, and also reiterated their commitment to maintaining open and secure trade flows and strengthening supply chain resilience.
In the face of such volatility and uncertainty, accelerating ASEAN's regional economic integration has become a top priority agenda. This includes driving the negotiations for the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework, upgrading ASEAN's Trade in Goods Agreement, upgrading different ASEAN+ 1 FTAs to future proof and modernize these agreements, strengthening and increasing intra-ASEAN trade (which includes the removal of non-tariff barriers), and creating safety nets for the region's most vulnerable workers and industries.
Analyze how Southeast Asian capitals are managing relations with Washington while concurrently balancing their countries' strategic position in the broader China-U.S. trade war.
President Trump's tariffs are currently at the baseline of 10 percent, but the 90-day 'pause' on higher rates is set to expire by July 8. The tariffs are causing much anxiety in capitals around Southeast Asia. Some countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos – which are subject to some of the highest levels of tariffs – have yet to conclusively reach a settlement.
The silver lining, at least at the time of response to this question, is that the U.S. has reportedly 'reached a deal' with China on the export of rare earth elements and continued acceptance of Chinese students in U.S. higher education institutions. Regional governments know enough, by now, not to take such news at face value. Anything can change overnight.
Conventional knowledge tells us that if the U.S. is more or less happy with the Chinese deal, then perhaps the level of pressure and scrutiny on Southeast Asia would come down. One of the biggest issues under discussion is how Southeast Asia provides a backdoor for Chinese goods to flow through to the U.S. and how the region can help to stem this flow. But these are not conventional times, and everything is fair game to the current administration.
With the U.S. now focusing on the Iran strikes and counter-responses, it's an open question whether there is bandwidth to conclude more trade deals with countries ahead of the July 8 deadline. With the distraction of the Iran-Israel conflict and potential for widening wars in the Middle East, it remains to be seen if President Trump would pay sufficient attention to the Pandora's box of tariffs.
Examine how Southeast Asian countries are protecting specific industries and trans-shipment capabilities that advance their respective national interests.
Export re-direction from China to Southeast Asia is a real concern. Many Southeast Asian economies are heavily export-oriented so having to deal with the double whammy of tariff imposition from one of their biggest markets (the U.S.) as well as re-direction from one of their biggest trading partners (China) is very challenging. It would mean that domestic manufacturing and export industries will be impacted.
For example, the Cambodian garment industry's biggest export destination is the U.S. but with 49 percent tariffs, it would be difficult for exporters to bear the cost. In effect, the industry will see greater cancellation of orders because U.S. retailers would not be willing to bear this cost either.
Identify supply chain risks and opportunities facing Southeast Asian companies amid China-U.S. trade tensions.
Assuming that the U.S.-Iran conflict can be contained, there is currently the risk that the Strait of Hormuz, where much of Asia-Europe trade transits, could be blockaded. This is the most significant development that can disrupt trade flows and importantly the flow of essential goods such as LNG and petroleum to Asia. U.S.-China trade tensions, for the moment, will take a backseat to what is happening in the Middle East.
As seen the last few times when the world experienced major blockages of waterways such as the Suez Canal, the business costs of diversifying access markets, halting production, manufacturing, and delaying deliveries are tremendously high. Southeast Asian companies have learned to diversify into different markets and looked for new suppliers that are geographically not reliant on open routes. It is also an opportunity for companies to invest in better R&D to create higher value goods in order to claim a place in the supply chains.
Assess the geopolitical implications of ASEAN states' calculations in negotiating tariffs with Washington.
Even if the conflict in the Middle East recedes, the environment for constructive negotiations on trade has deteriorated, as the recently concluded G-7 summit showed. The outlook therefore for future trade gatherings such as the G-20 in Seoul is dampened, especially if the U.S. representative is distracted and unwilling to negotiate.
The question troubling many trading nations of the world is whether the rate of diminishing returns in pursuing the U.S. for economic deals is worthwhile or whether it would be better to deepen relations with other partners such as China, the EU, Japan, South Korea, etc. The chances of ASEAN leaders getting a meeting with President Trump at this year's ASEAN Summit or on invitation to Washington D.C. have diminished. In fact, from the announcement of Liberation Day tariffs, few world leaders have managed to speak to President Trump and even if they did secure something of a 'deal,' may find the terms changing over time.
It would seem the better strategy is to build ASEAN's own economic resilience up by deepening integration, increasing intra-regional trade from the current levels of 22 percent, attracting greater FDI from nontraditional partners such as the Gulf states, and accelerating the adoption of ease of business schemes such as the ASEAN Single Window Plus (which is meant to link ASEAN countries' customs/border systems with those of its major trading partners to facilitate greater ease of transactions) and cross-border e-payment systems etc.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Nikkei Asia
2 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
DRAM prices soar as China eyes self-reliance for high-end chips
SK Hynix, Samsung Electronics and Micron Technology control 90% of the global DRAM market. (Photo obtained by Nikkei) Nikkei staff writers TOKYO -- Prices for standard DRAM, a widely used type of memory chip, remain high after doubling in just one month on speculation that Chinese manufacturers are phasing out production to focus on artificial intelligence chips and boost the country's self-reliance in semiconductors.


The Diplomat
3 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Bangladesh's Post-Hasina Foreign Policy Reset
Following Sheikh Hasina's exit from power in August 2024, Bangladesh began reshaping its foreign policy, gradually moving away from its India-centric posture and pursuing a more diversified diplomatic approach. The interim government has sought to deepen engagement with China, Pakistan, and Western powers such as the United States and the European Union. India, long considered a supporter of Hasina's regime, now faces criticism from Bangladeshis who accuse it of meddling. A major milestone came during Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus' visit to China in March 2025. The trip underscored Beijing's emergence as a key economic partner. Bangladesh secured $2.1 billion in loans, investments, and grants, including $400 million for the modernization of Mongla Port and $350 million for the Chinese Industrial Economic Zone in Chattogram. Eight MoUs were signed, covering areas such as infrastructure, healthcare, manufacturing, and hydrological data sharing related to the Yarlung Tsangpo-Yamuna River. Notably, China's renewed interest in the Teesta River project – long stalled due to tensions with India – illustrates Dhaka's strategic pivot toward Beijing as a counterweight to Indian influence. Other outcomes included an extension of duty-free access for 99 percent of Bangladeshi exports until 2028, discussions to reduce interest rates on Chinese loans, and talks on setting up Chinese factories in textiles, pharmaceuticals, and renewable energy. Moreover, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency recently warned that China is considering establishing a military presence in several countries, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Myanmar. However, Chinese Ambassador to Bangladesh Yao Wen has dismissed the report, denying that China has any such intentions regarding Bangladesh. The potential launch of a direct Chittagong-Kunming flight and a boost in cultural exchanges further solidified this evolving partnership. China also reiterated support for Bangladesh on the Rohingya issue, aligning with Dhaka's push for international cooperation. China has also engaged with Bangladesh's political actors. In June and July 2025, both the BNP and JI sent delegations to China at the invitation of the Chinese Communist Party. The BNP team, led by Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, held high-level meetings with CCP Politburo member Li Hongzhong, who extended an invitation to the BNP's acting chairman, Tarique Rahman. Around the same time, a high level JI delegation focused on party-to-party governance exchanges and future development projects. These visits reflect Beijing's effort to build ties across Bangladesh's political spectrum as the BNP and JI gain momentum in the post-Hasina landscape. At the same time, Bangladesh has rekindled relations with Pakistan, which were strained under Hasina due to historical baggage from the 1971 Liberation War. Since August 2024, bilateral trade has grown, with new cooperation in construction, food, pharmaceuticals, and IT. The formation of a joint business council and Pakistan's offer of 300 fully funded scholarships signal growing warmth. Defense ties have also progressed, with January 2025 talks on joint exercises and potential procurement of JF-17 Thunder jets as part of Bangladesh's Forces Goal 2030 modernization plan. In a further sign of shifting regional dynamics, a trilateral meeting took place in Kunming in June, involving representatives from China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Although Dhaka declined to join any alliance, the timing suggests growing coordination. These developments point to Beijing's broader ambition to reshape the strategic landscape in South Asia through Pakistan and Bangladesh, leveraging its economic and political clout to challenge India's traditional dominance. This recent activity of China's strategic presence has not gone unnoticed in New Delhi. Yunus' earlier remarks in China, describing Bangladesh as a gateway to India's Northeast and an extension of China's economy, have only amplified Indian anxieties. In Bangladesh, the perception that India supported Hasina's regime has deepened public mistrust. Bangladesh's relations with India have thus sharply deteriorated. Tensions were exacerbated by Dhaka's demand for Hasina's extradition. The interim government wants her returned to Bangladesh to face charges related to corruption and human rights abuses during her tenure. India's reluctance to comply, citing legal and diplomatic complexities, has fueled accusations in Bangladesh that it is shielding a discredited leader. This standoff has deepened anti-India sentiment, with many Bangladeshis viewing New Delhi's stance as evidence of continued interference in their country's affairs. Efforts to stabilize bilateral ties have been hampered by mutual distrust and competing narratives. India has expressed unease over Bangladesh's warming relations with China and Pakistan, particularly the trilateral Kunming meeting, which New Delhi may perceive as a deliberate attempt to counterbalance its influence. In response, India has doubled down on its narrative of protecting minority rights in Bangladesh, particularly for Hindus, which Dhaka dismisses as a pretext for meddling. Critics in Bangladesh, however, view India's focus on minority rights as hypocritical, given its own internal record. The attack on Bangladesh's diplomatic compound in Agartala in December last year, where protesters from Indian far-right organizations burned the national flag of Bangladesh, served as a warning signal for the trajectory of relations. The attack triggered outrage in Dhaka. Bangladesh's Foreign Ministry condemned the Agartala attack as a breach of the Vienna Convention, signaling a more assertive diplomatic posture. The interim government's push for accountability regarding Hasina's regime, coupled with India's strategic imperative to maintain a foothold in Bangladesh, suggests that relations will remain turbulent unless a framework can address the extradition issue and broader geopolitical concerns. Bangladesh's foreign policy has clearly changed in the year since Hasina's exit. The country is moving away from its heavy reliance on India and building stronger ties with China, Pakistan, and Western nations. As Bangladesh becomes more confident on the global stage, relations with India have become tense. Unless both sides find a common ground this mistrust is likely to continue.


Japan Today
5 hours ago
- Japan Today
U.S. gov't may be abandoning global climate fight, but new leaders are filling the void
By Shannon Gibson Chinese President Xi Jinping, center, meets with visiting President of the European Council Antonio Costa, left, and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, right, at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on July 24. When President Donald Trump announced in early 2025 that he was withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement for the second time, it triggered fears that the move would undermine global efforts to slow climate change and diminish America's global influence. A big question hung in the air: Who would step into the leadership vacuum? I study the dynamics of global environmental politics, including through the United Nations climate negotiations. While it's still too early to fully assess the long-term impact of the United States' political shift when it comes to global cooperation on climate change, there are signs that a new set of leaders is rising to the occasion. World responds to another U.S. withdrawal The U.S. first committed to the Paris Agreement in a joint announcement by President Barack Obama and China's Xi Jinping in 2015. At the time, the U.S. agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025 and pledged financial support to help developing countries adapt to climate risks and embrace renewable energy. Some people praised the U.S. engagement, while others criticized the original commitment as too weak. Since then, the U.S. has cut emissions by 17.2% below 2005 levels – missing the goal, in part because its efforts have been stymied along the way. Just two years after the landmark Paris Agreement, Trump stood in the Rose Garden in 2017 and announced he was withdrawing the U.S. from the treaty, citing concerns that jobs would be lost, that meeting the goals would be an economic burden, and that it wouldn't be fair because China, the world's largest emitter today, wasn't projected to start reducing its emissions for several years. Scientists and some politicians and business leaders were quick to criticize the decision, calling it 'shortsighted' and 'reckless.' Some feared that the Paris Agreement, signed by almost every country, would fall apart. But it did not. In the United States, businesses such as Apple, Google, Microsoft and Tesla made their own pledges to meet the Paris Agreement goals. Hawaii passed legislation to become the first state to align with the agreement. A coalition of U.S. cities and states banded together to form the United States Climate Alliance to keep working to slow climate change. Globally, leaders from Italy, Germany and France rebutted Trump's assertion that the Paris Agreement could be renegotiated. Others from Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand doubled down on their own support of the global climate accord. In 2020, President Joe Biden brought the U.S. back into the agreement. Now, with Trump pulling the U.S. out again – and taking steps to eliminate U.S. climate policies, boost fossil fuels and slow the growth of clean energy at home – other countries are stepping up. On July 24, China and the European Union issued a joint statement vowing to strengthen their climate targets and meet them. They alluded to the U.S., referring to 'the fluid and turbulent international situation today' in saying that 'the major economies … must step up efforts to address climate change.' In some respects, this is a strength of the Paris Agreement – it is a legally nonbinding agreement based on what each country decides to commit to. Its flexibility keeps it alive, as the withdrawal of a single member does not trigger immediate sanctions, nor does it render the actions of others obsolete. The agreement survived the first U.S. withdrawal, and so far, all signs point to it surviving the second one. Who's filling the leadership vacuum From what I've seen in international climate meetings and my team's research, it appears that most countries are moving forward. One bloc emerging as a powerful voice in negotiations is the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries – a group of low- and middle-income countries that includes China, India, Bolivia and Venezuela. Driven by economic development concerns, these countries are pressuring the developed world to meet its commitments to both cut emissions and provide financial aid to poorer countries. China, motivated by economic and political factors, seems to be happily filling the climate power vacuum created by the U.S. exit. In 2017, China voiced disappointment over the first U.S. withdrawal. It maintained its climate commitments and pledged to contribute more in climate finance to other developing countries than the U.S. had committed to – $3.1 billion compared with $3 billion. This time around, China is using leadership on climate change in ways that fit its broader strategy of gaining influence and economic power by supporting economic growth and cooperation in developing countries. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has scaled up renewable energy exports and development in other countries, such as investing in solar power in Egypt and wind energy development in Ethiopia. While China is still the world's largest coal consumer, it has aggressively pursued investments in renewable energy at home, including solar, wind and electrification. In 2024, about half the renewable energy capacity built worldwide was in China. While it missed the deadline to submit its climate pledge due this year, China has a goal of peaking its emissions before 2030 and then dropping to net-zero emissions by 2060. It is continuing major investments in renewable energy, both for its own use and for export. The U.S. government, in contrast, is cutting its support for wind and solar power. China also just expanded its carbon market to encourage emissions cuts in the cement, steel and aluminum sectors. The British government has also ratcheted up its climate commitments as it seeks to become a clean energy superpower. In 2025, it pledged to cut emissions 77% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. Its new pledge is also more transparent and specific than in the past, with details on how specific sectors, such as power, transportation, construction and agriculture, will cut emissions. And it contains stronger commitments to provide funding to help developing countries grow more sustainably. In terms of corporate leadership, while many American businesses are being quieter about their efforts, in order to avoid sparking the ire of the Trump administration, most appear to be continuing on a green path – despite the lack of federal support and diminished rules. USA Today and Statista's 'America's Climate Leader List' includes about 500 large companies that have reduced their carbon intensity – carbon emissions divided by revenue – by 3% from the previous year. The data shows that the list is growing, up from about 400 in 2023. What to watch at the 2025 climate talks The Paris Agreement isn't going anywhere. Given the agreement's design, with each country voluntarily setting its own goals, the U.S. never had the power to drive it into obsolescence. The question is if developed and developing country leaders alike can navigate two pressing needs – economic growth and ecological sustainability – without compromising their leadership on climate change. This year's U.N. climate conference in Brazil, COP30, will show how countries intend to move forward and, importantly, who will lead the way. Shannon Gibson is Professor of Environmental Studies, Political Science and International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. Research assistant Emerson Damiano, a recent graduate in environmental studies at USC, contributed to this article. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation