“Looking around and all over this large, magnificent planet, the truth is plain to see: If you want freedom, take pride in your country. If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace, love your nation. Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first.” — President Donald J Trump, address at the UN General Assembly, September 25, 2019.

AS THE United States administration contemplated significant changes to US trade policy, a fundamental question emerged: Should the US embrace open commerce with other nations, or should it shield domestic industries from foreign competition?

This debate has been a recurring source of political conflict throughout American history, as trade policy invariably involves clashing economic interests.

US President Donald Trump announced plans for reciprocal tariffs against countries that impose duties on US goods or implement policies deemed unfair by the White House. These measures have unsettled global markets and drawn criticism from Republican senators, who warn of the risk of a global trade war.

Major trading partners such as China, Canada, and the European Union have threatened retaliation. Trump justified these tariffs by claiming the world’s largest economy has been “ripped off by every country in the world”. While he framed the move as a reset of America’s economic relationships, some within his administration suggested targeting a smaller group of nations, notably BRICS members such as China, Russia, and South Africa.

Unsurprisingly, South Africa’s recent action against Israel at the International Court of Justice has not endeared it to the Trump administration.

To understand Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, one must consider the broader context of US trade policy, shaped by economic and political forces throughout history. From Thomas Jefferson’s embargo on foreign trade to South Carolina’s threat of secession over import taxes, trade policy has long divided the nation.

The Civil War ushered in an era of protectionism, which later faced constant political challenges. The Smoot-Hawley tariff during the Great Depression became a turning point, leading to a shift toward freer trade through agreements that eventually established the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Douglas A Irwin’s *Clashing Over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy* provides a comprehensive account of this turbulent history, offering insights into how economic interests are geographically grouped, ensuring that every proposed policy change finds both champions and opponents in Congress.

Since the negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) and China’s emergence as a major exporter, the US trade landscape has transformed dramatically. Imports surged, factories closed, and the country now relies heavily on foreign creditors to finance its dependence on imported goods.

This raises a critical question: What is the proper balance between free trade and protecting the American economy? This politically sensitive issue, which gained prominence during the 2008 presidential election, can only be addressed by examining key events, players, and controversies in US trade policy — from the republic’s early days to the post-World War II era.

Current issues such as the Doha Round, Nafta, and presidential trade authority must also be explored within the context of a globalised world economy.

Other factors shaping US trade policy include influential figures like elected officials, economists, and activists, as well as the rise of the EU and Asia’s rapidly growing economies. One key takeaway is that trade policy is driven not only by ideological appeals to free trade but also by powerful interest groups seeking to profit from — or shelter themselves against — the dynamic global economy.

Few issues are as politically explosive as trade liberalisation, as recent controversies in the US, Canada, and Mexico demonstrate. While loosening trade restrictions may benefit a nation’s economy overall, it often alienates vested interests, which can exert severe political costs. This is a risk Trump appears unwilling to take.

Strategically, Trump’s reciprocal tariffs must be viewed against the backdrop of the shifting global order, with China and India at the forefront. Often referred to as the “Asian Century”, the 21st century has seen these nations emerge as strong economic powers, weathering the 2008 global recession.

Countries like China, Brazil, India, Indonesia, and South Africa have made impressive strides. By 2050, China, Brazil, and India are projected to account for 40% of global output in purchasing power parity terms, according to Rumki Basu’s *Public Administration in the 21st Century: A Global South Perspective*.

China’s psychological strategies aim to secure political superiority, weaken adversaries’ legitimacy, and divide alliances. By shaping international perceptions, China delegitimises Western actions, erodes US and European credibility, and undermines their allies’ confidence. This approach influences global narratives, often portraying Western nations as aggressors while positioning China as a stabilising force.

As US-China tensions escalate, understanding China’s psychological warfare tactics is crucial. While these strategies do not replace conventional warfare, they shape global narratives, undermine Western alliances, and influence international stability.

The 2019 Chinese defence white paper highlights a shift toward “informationised” and “intelligent” warfare, underscoring the need for global norms to counter psychological manipulation. Through selective truths and fabricated claims, China has influenced discourse around conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war, framing Western actions as unjustified while presenting itself as neutral and principled. This positions China as an alternative global leader while challenging US and European influence.

Trump’s supporters argue that, rhetoric aside, his foreign policy seeks to strengthen the US for the future. They contend that “America first” does not mean “America alone” and that leaders of sovereign nations should prioritise their citizens’ well-being over global governance. This vision requires a new framework based on mutual respect and reciprocal relationships among sovereign states that value freedom.

In his address to the UN General Assembly, Trump encapsulated his foreign policy philosophy: “Looking around and all over this large, magnificent planet, the truth is plain to see: If you want freedom, take pride in your country. If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace, love your nation. Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first. The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honour the differences that make each country special and unique.”

* Dr Vusi Shongwe works in the Department of Arts and Culture in KwaZulu-Natal and writes in his personal capacity.

** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.