
China positions itself as an alternative to ‘unpredictable' Trump
After the second world war, the US and its western allies created a set of international agreements and institutions to govern attitudes to mutual defense, economics and human rights. For decades this created stable alliances and predictable economic plans.
But, unlike his predecessors, Donald Trump believes that international organizations undermine US interests and sovereignty. He has withdrawn the US from the World Health Organization, and there is speculation he could reduce the US commitment to the United Nations. US investment in NATO's mutual defense pact remains under discussion.
But while Washington is busy sounding the retreat from the very world order it had a hand in building, Beijing is looking to increase its international role. Chinese leadership in international agencies affiliated with the UN has increased over the years, and so has its financial commitment to international institutions.
That's not all. China is also a prominent member of trade coalitions such as the 15-member Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the ten-member Brics group (led by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These groups not only promote greater economic integration among its members, but may reduce members' reliance on the US economy and the US dollar. Given an increasingly volatile US, China's presence as the second largest economy in the world in these trade groups would be useful.
Now with the whole world negotiating new US trade deals, most nations see their relationship with the US as unstable. China sees this as a golden opportunity to position itself as a global counterbalance to the US. One of its policies is to 'deliver greater security, prosperity and respect for developing countries' – and this is particularly relevant in African nations, where US aid is being reduced rapidly.
A Sino-US trade deal was reached in London on June 10, 2025. US tariffs on Chinese goods now stand at 55%, while Chinese tariffs on US imports will remain at 10%. But how long this trade deal will last remains uncertain, when Trump has a tendency to change his mind.
Just a month earlier, on May 12, Washington and Beijing concluded a major trade accord in Geneva aimed at diffusing massive trade tensions. Unfortunately, this deal only lasted for 18 days before Trump started accusing China of violating the agreement.
But Trump's tendency to escalate trade tensions and then diffuse them is not just China's problem. His allies are also a victim of his frequent wavering. This leaves nations around the world, whether traditional US partners or not, in a crisis of not knowing what the Washington's next move will be, and whether their economies will suffer.
In February 2025, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada but temporarily called off the tariffs a month later. Then in early April 2025, Trump raised tariffs on 60 countries and trading blocs, including traditional US allies such as the EU (20%), Japan (24%), South Korea (25%) and Taiwan (32%). Hours later, Trump unexpectedly rescinded these tariffs, but that caused massive damage to the global economy.
If there is a time that the world needs a more predictable partner, it would be now. But what's needed isn't a Trump-helmed US. A recent annual report on democracy and national attitudes indicates that, for the first time, respondents across 100 countries view China more favorably than they do the US. So, could China be the partner that the world seeks?
While the world needs a stable environment to promote economic growth, Beijing needs this stability for reasons that go beyond economics.
Unlike liberal democracies that derive their legitimacy through elections, a large part of Beijing's legitimacy comes from its ability to deliver sustained economic prosperity to the Chinese people. But with a battered economy, the troubles first triggered by a real estate crisis in 2021, this task of maintaining legitimacy has become more difficult.
Exporting its way of out the economic slump may have been on Beijing's books, as this was one of China's traditional methods for promoting economic growth. But Trump's trade war has made exporting an increasingly difficult prospect – especially to the US, which imports 14.8% of total Chinese exports.
As a result, fixing China's economy has become a priority for the Chinese government, and it is because of this that Xi tours neighboring Asean countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia to promote trade and strategic plans to maintain economic stability.
Despite everything that China is doing, its image remains a problem for some. For instance, China has claimed sovereignty over the South China Sea and has built ports, military installations and airstrips on artificial islands across the region, despite territorial disputes with neighbors including Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.
But there are other concerns about China. The country's rapid advancements in military technology, for example, have the potential to destabilize security within the Indo Pacific, potentially allowing China to take control of strategically placed islands to use as bases for its navy. China is also becoming a dominant hacking threat, according to UK cyber expert Richard Horne, which is likely to cause problems for worldwide cybersecurity.
Polish prime minister Donald Tusk once remarked: 'With a friend like Trump, who needs enemies?' Many other national leaders are likely to share Tusk's sentiment today, and may see opportunities to extend trade deals with China as an alternative to a turbulent relationship with Trump.
Chee Meng Tan is an assistant professor of business economics at the University of Nottingham.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags

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


Asia Times
4 hours ago
- Asia Times
Trump made clear he does not fit in with G7, nor does he want to
Working alongside western democratic allies has not been a natural fit for Donald Trump. The US president left the recently concluded G7 summit in Canada early, with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron assuming this was to work on addressing the most severe escalation between Iran and Israel in decades. But Trump offered little communication with other G7 members, which include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK, of what his plans were. He said he had to leave the summit 'for obvious reasons', though failed to elaborate on what he meant. After exiting the summit, he lambasted Macron on social media. Trump wrote: 'Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire.' Trump continued by saying his exit was due to something 'much bigger than that' – adding, 'Emmanuel always gets it wrong.' This has prompted discussion over whether US forces may join Israel's strikes on Iran. Despite initially distancing the US from the Israeli attacks, Trump said on June 17: 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He has since demanded Tehran's 'unconditional surrender', while also issuing a chilling threat to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, describing him as an 'easy target.' The pressure campaign employed by Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to convince Trump that the time is right for a military assault on Iran seems to be working. Exploiting Trump's impulsive nature, Netanyahu may soon be able to convince Trump to give Israel what it needs to destroy Iran's underground uranium enrichment sites: a 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bomb and a B-2 bomber to carry it. The US's western allies have been left scrambling to interpret Trump's social media posts and figure out the real reason he left the G7 summit early. The only aircraft capable of carrying 'bunker-buster' bombs is the B-2. Mariusz Lopusiewicz / Shutterstock This wasn't the first time that Trump has left a G7 forum early. In 2018, the last time such a meeting was held in Canada, Trump also left early after Macron and the then Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, promised to confront Trump over the imposition of tariffs on US allies. The latest G7 summit also wasn't the first time Trump has treated traditional US allies with suspicion. Trump has cast doubt on US willingness to defend NATO allies if they don't pay more for their own defense. He has repeatedly threatened to leave the alliance and has frequently denigrated it – even calling alliance members 'delinquent.' Trump thinks the US gains an advantage by abandoning relationships with 'free riders.' But experts have made clear alienating allies makes the US weaker. While the alliance system has given the US unprecedented influence over the foreign policies of US allies in the past, Trump's pressure to increase their defense spending will make them more independent of the US in the long-term. Trump seems to prefer a world guided by short-term self-interest at the expense of long-term collective security. Indeed, with an 'America first' agenda, multilateral cooperation is not Trump's strong suit. With the G7, Trump is yet again making clear that he does not fit in, nor does he want to. Because the G7 is small and relatively homogenous in membership, meetings between members are supposed to promote collective and decisive decision-making. However, even the task of coming up with a joint statement on the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel proved challenging. Trump eventually joined other leaders in calling for deescalation in the Middle East, and the G7 was in agreement that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. But Trump's social media activity since then has left US allies in the dark over what role the US might play in the conflict. Trump also alarmed G7 members with calls for Russia to return to the forum. He claimed that the war in Ukraine would not have happened had Moscow not been ejected from the former G8 grouping in 2014. Then, on his way out of the summit, Trump bragged to reporters that Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, 'doesn't speak to anybody else' but him. Trump added that Putin was insulted when Russia was thrown out of the G8, 'as I would be, as you would be, as anybody would be.' Following weeks of frustration over Russia's refusal to engage in serious peace talks about ending the war in Ukraine, Trump seems to have returned to being Putin's most loyal advocate. During Trump's first term, he pushed multilateralism to the brink. But he did not completely disengage. The US withdrew from the Paris climate accords, the nuclear deal with Iran and negotiations for a trade deal with Pacific nations – and Washington imposed sanctions against officials of the International Criminal Court. However, when multilateral initiatives served Trump's short-term objectives, he was willing to get on board. A trade deal struck with Canada and Mexico in his first term Trump described as 'the most important' ever agreed by the US. He said the deal would bring thousands of jobs back to North America. The second Trump administration has been even more hostile to multilateralism. Not only has the trade deal with Canada and Mexico been undermined by Trump's love of tariffs, his administration has been more antagonistic toward almost all of the US's traditional allies. In fact, most of Trump's ire is reserved for democracies not autocracies. In contrast to the G7, where he clearly felt out of place, Trump was in his element during his May trip to the Middle East. Trump has a more natural connection to the leaders of the Gulf who do not have to adhere to democratic norms and human rights, and where deals can get done immediately. Trump left the Middle East reveling in all of the billion-dollar deals he made, which he exaggerated were worth US$2 trillion. The G7, on the other hand, doesn't offer much to Trump. He sees it as more of a nuisance. The G7 forum is supposed to reassure the public that the most powerful countries in the world are united in their commitment to stability. But Trump's antics are undermining the credibility of that message. It is these antics that risk dragging the west into a dangerous confrontation with Iran. Natasha Lindstaedt is a professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Asia Times
4 hours ago
- Asia Times
Iran's long history of revolution, defiance, outside interference
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests. United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu's goal and asked for Iran's total surrender. If the US does get involved, it wouldn't be the first time it's tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively. In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region. Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown? As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve. The overthrow of the shah The Iranian Islamic regime assumed power in the wake of the pro-democracy popular uprising of 1978–79, which toppled Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi's pro-Western monarchy. Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925. In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup. Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernixing efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power. The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader. The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah's religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organized and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas. When US President Jimmy Carter's administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome. Birth of the Islamic Republic In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam. Khomeini denounced the US as a 'Great Satan' and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of 'neither east nor west,' but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region. Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region. Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran's domestic and foreign policy behaviour. A new supreme leader takes power Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges. Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defense capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime. Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority. He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees and Shia religious networks. The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers. Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognizant that, if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily. However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative? The return of the shah? Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organized opposition under a nationally unifying leader. The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians: The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime's apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all. Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu. If he were to return to power – say, through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did. What does the future hold? Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule. Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It's also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix. The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies. Iran has historically been held together by centralization rather than diffusion of power. Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratization within a unified national framework. At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation. They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren't self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced. Amin Saikal is an emeritus professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian studies at Australian National University and vice chancellor's strategic fellow at Victoria University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Asia Times
5 hours ago
- Asia Times
China positions itself as an alternative to ‘unpredictable' Trump
After the second world war, the US and its western allies created a set of international agreements and institutions to govern attitudes to mutual defense, economics and human rights. For decades this created stable alliances and predictable economic plans. But, unlike his predecessors, Donald Trump believes that international organizations undermine US interests and sovereignty. He has withdrawn the US from the World Health Organization, and there is speculation he could reduce the US commitment to the United Nations. US investment in NATO's mutual defense pact remains under discussion. But while Washington is busy sounding the retreat from the very world order it had a hand in building, Beijing is looking to increase its international role. Chinese leadership in international agencies affiliated with the UN has increased over the years, and so has its financial commitment to international institutions. That's not all. China is also a prominent member of trade coalitions such as the 15-member Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the ten-member Brics group (led by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These groups not only promote greater economic integration among its members, but may reduce members' reliance on the US economy and the US dollar. Given an increasingly volatile US, China's presence as the second largest economy in the world in these trade groups would be useful. Now with the whole world negotiating new US trade deals, most nations see their relationship with the US as unstable. China sees this as a golden opportunity to position itself as a global counterbalance to the US. One of its policies is to 'deliver greater security, prosperity and respect for developing countries' – and this is particularly relevant in African nations, where US aid is being reduced rapidly. A Sino-US trade deal was reached in London on June 10, 2025. US tariffs on Chinese goods now stand at 55%, while Chinese tariffs on US imports will remain at 10%. But how long this trade deal will last remains uncertain, when Trump has a tendency to change his mind. Just a month earlier, on May 12, Washington and Beijing concluded a major trade accord in Geneva aimed at diffusing massive trade tensions. Unfortunately, this deal only lasted for 18 days before Trump started accusing China of violating the agreement. But Trump's tendency to escalate trade tensions and then diffuse them is not just China's problem. His allies are also a victim of his frequent wavering. This leaves nations around the world, whether traditional US partners or not, in a crisis of not knowing what the Washington's next move will be, and whether their economies will suffer. In February 2025, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada but temporarily called off the tariffs a month later. Then in early April 2025, Trump raised tariffs on 60 countries and trading blocs, including traditional US allies such as the EU (20%), Japan (24%), South Korea (25%) and Taiwan (32%). Hours later, Trump unexpectedly rescinded these tariffs, but that caused massive damage to the global economy. If there is a time that the world needs a more predictable partner, it would be now. But what's needed isn't a Trump-helmed US. A recent annual report on democracy and national attitudes indicates that, for the first time, respondents across 100 countries view China more favorably than they do the US. So, could China be the partner that the world seeks? While the world needs a stable environment to promote economic growth, Beijing needs this stability for reasons that go beyond economics. Unlike liberal democracies that derive their legitimacy through elections, a large part of Beijing's legitimacy comes from its ability to deliver sustained economic prosperity to the Chinese people. But with a battered economy, the troubles first triggered by a real estate crisis in 2021, this task of maintaining legitimacy has become more difficult. Exporting its way of out the economic slump may have been on Beijing's books, as this was one of China's traditional methods for promoting economic growth. But Trump's trade war has made exporting an increasingly difficult prospect – especially to the US, which imports 14.8% of total Chinese exports. As a result, fixing China's economy has become a priority for the Chinese government, and it is because of this that Xi tours neighboring Asean countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia to promote trade and strategic plans to maintain economic stability. Despite everything that China is doing, its image remains a problem for some. For instance, China has claimed sovereignty over the South China Sea and has built ports, military installations and airstrips on artificial islands across the region, despite territorial disputes with neighbors including Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei. But there are other concerns about China. The country's rapid advancements in military technology, for example, have the potential to destabilize security within the Indo Pacific, potentially allowing China to take control of strategically placed islands to use as bases for its navy. China is also becoming a dominant hacking threat, according to UK cyber expert Richard Horne, which is likely to cause problems for worldwide cybersecurity. Polish prime minister Donald Tusk once remarked: 'With a friend like Trump, who needs enemies?' Many other national leaders are likely to share Tusk's sentiment today, and may see opportunities to extend trade deals with China as an alternative to a turbulent relationship with Trump. Chee Meng Tan is an assistant professor of business economics at the University of Nottingham. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.