By: Moiz Farooq
Executive Editor, Pakistan Economic Net and Daily Ittehad Media Group
In the ever-evolving landscape of global trade, the United States continues to rely on unpredictability and pressure tactics as core components of its foreign economic policy. The recent developments surrounding U.S. tariff negotiations have once again exposed Washington’s approach — using economic might not for creating partnerships but for extracting concessions and asserting dominance.
During a recent White House meeting, then-President Donald Trump made headlines by announcing a 90-day suspension of certain tariffs on multiple countries, while maintaining a so-called “baseline tariff” of 10%. Yet, in the same breath, he warned that if no agreement was reached within those 90 days, higher tariffs would return — underscoring America’s transactional and often volatile strategy.
Perhaps the most unsettling aspect was Trump’s justification for this approach. When questioned on how decisions regarding tariff exemptions were made, his response was astonishing: “You almost can’t take a pencil to paper. It’s really more of an instinct than anything else.” This statement — about a decision impacting trillions of dollars in global trade — reveals a troubling reliance not on economic models or expert advice, but personal impulse.
At the heart of Washington’s strategy lies a clear ambition — to dismantle the multilateral trading system that has governed global commerce for decades, replacing it with a framework where the U.S. engages in bilateral negotiations, leveraging its economic power to dictate terms. Initially, U.S. officials claimed that over 75 countries had approached Washington seeking tariff relief. But this figure was later reduced to 15, reflecting not only the inflated rhetoric often employed but also the real objective: forcing countries, one by one, into direct and often unequal negotiations with the U.S. This is not diplomacy in the traditional sense. It is power politics disguised as trade policy.
The rhetoric used by Trump and his advisors during these negotiations reflects this aggressive mindset. Whether mocking other nations or resorting to outright threats, the language employed has often crossed traditional diplomatic boundaries. Canada was told it might “cease to exist as a viable country” if it didn’t comply. Allies were mocked with phrases like “kissing my ass” for seeking negotiations. Retaliation by other countries was belittled as “stooping so low.” Neighbors were branded “weak and ineffective” when they resisted. Even more striking was a statement by Stephen Miran, then-Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, who openly urged other countries to “simply write checks” to the U.S. Treasury — a clear reflection of the transactional and coercive nature of U.S. tariff policy.
Japan’s experience highlights the perils of appeasement. Despite investing heavily in the U.S. economy and offering strategic projects like a $44 billion natural gas initiative in Alaska, Japan faced additional tariffs — particularly targeting its vital automobile industry. For Japan, these tactics resurrect memories of the 1985 Plaza Accord, which forced the appreciation of the yen, crippling its export competitiveness and marking the beginning of its “lost decades.”
Canada and Mexico, key trade partners of the U.S., were also subjected to tariffs despite early attempts at negotiation. Canada’s bold retaliatory measures, including a surcharge on electricity exports affecting U.S. border states, forced Washington to reconsider and withdraw some tariff threats. The Canadian leadership’s response was blunt yet insightful. As Canada’s new prime minister, Mark Carney, declared: “The global trade system anchored on the United States is over. Our old relationship of deepening integration is over.”
China, however, presents a different challenge for Washington. Despite facing aggressive tariffs, China has responded with calculated countermeasures while remaining open to dialogue — provided it is based on equality and respect. Trump’s repeated overtures to Beijing for renewed talks are a testament to the resilience and strategic patience shown by China. American economists, including those from JPMorgan, have warned that continued tariff wars could push the U.S. towards recession, with over 90% of economists surveyed by Bloomberg linking tariffs to increased recession risks. Former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen went so far as to label the U.S. tariff policy “the worst self-inflicted wound” for the American economy.
The current U.S. approach to trade negotiations signals a deeper shift — from partnership to pressure, from cooperation to coercion. It reflects a worldview where economic strength is used less for building alliances and more for extracting advantages. For developing nations, this poses a critical challenge. The choice is no longer just about engaging in trade, but about navigating an environment where yielding to U.S. demands can lead to further exploitation, while resistance invites economic aggression.
China’s position remains clear: it is willing to negotiate but refuses to do so under threats or humiliation. Real negotiations require mutual respect, equality, and a commitment to shared prosperity — principles increasingly absent from Washington’s playbook. Ultimately, for China — and indeed for many nations — the greatest strength lies in focusing on internal development, resilience, and the pursuit of an independent path in the global arena.
