aljazeera.com
US-China Trade War Intensifies with 104 Percent Tariffs
President Trump's reciprocal tariffs on Chinese goods, reaching 104 percent, triggered an 84 percent retaliatory tariff from China, escalating a global trade war and impacting stock markets.
- What are the immediate economic consequences of the recently implemented US-China tariffs?
- On April 5th, 2025, President Trump initiated reciprocal tariffs, significantly impacting China with a 104 percent levy on goods sold to the US. China retaliated with an 84 percent tariff on US imports, escalating the trade war and causing global stock market declines.
- How did China respond to the escalating tariffs imposed by the US, and what were their justifications?
- Trump's tariffs, initially at 10 percent, increased to 54 percent on Chinese imports before China's 34 percent reciprocal tariff. Trump's threat of additional tariffs if China didn't withdraw its levies led to China's further increase to 84 percent, intensifying the trade conflict.
- What are the potential long-term impacts of this trade war on both the Chinese and US economies, and what strategies might each country employ to mitigate the damage?
- Goldman Sachs projects a 2.4 percent decrease in China's GDP due to these tariffs, lowering the growth forecast to 4.5 percent (below the government's 5 percent target). UBS analysts are even more pessimistic, predicting 4 percent growth, even with fiscal expansion. This adds to China's existing economic challenges, including deflation and a struggling property market.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the narrative primarily from the perspective of the US and its actions, making Trump's moves the central focus. The headline and opening sentences immediately highlight the US tariffs and their impact on China, setting the tone for the rest of the article. While China's responses are described, they are presented largely as reactions to US actions rather than as independent strategic decisions.
Language Bias
While generally neutral, the repeated use of terms like "nosedived", "trade war", and descriptions of Trump's actions as "raising the temperature" or "threatening" contribute to a tone that emphasizes conflict and negativity. Less charged alternatives could be used, such as 'declined sharply,' 'trade dispute,' or more neutral verbs like 'announced' instead of 'threatened'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the US perspective and actions, giving less weight to the potential motivations and broader context of China's responses. It mentions China's statements but doesn't delve deeply into China's economic reasoning or internal political pressures that might be influencing their decisions. The potential impact of these tariffs on other countries beyond China and the US is largely absent.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing of the US-China trade relationship, focusing on a narrative of conflict and suggesting limited options for resolution. Nuances and possibilities for negotiation or compromise are underplayed. The repeated framing of events as 'trade war' intensifies this binary presentation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative impact of US tariffs on China's economy, potentially leading to job losses in export-oriented sectors and slower economic growth. This directly affects decent work and economic growth in China. The potential 2.4% reduction in GDP, as predicted by Goldman Sachs, signifies a substantial blow to economic progress. China's reliance on exports also means that disruptions to trade heavily impact employment and overall economic health.