For decades, the successful framework of multilateralism has fostered globalization and international economic cooperation, offering mutual benefits and a shared vision of progress. The United States, once a central architect of this system, is now systematically dismantling the very order it helped construct. Through unilateral actions and aggressive trade policies, Washington has shifted from being a champion of multilateralism into a disruptive force, undermining global norms and eroding trust among nations.
The imposition of sweeping tariffs earlier — particularly against China, as well as the recent tech bans against China and visa restrictions against Chinese students — is emblematic of this transformation. These measures were not defensive tools designed to safeguard domestic interests but calculated instruments of economic coercion or protectionism. They reflected a strategic shift toward unilateral dominance that rejects collaboration in favor of confrontation. These policy choices were neither grounded in sound economic reasoning nor aligned with the principles of international law. Instead, they were propelled by internal political pressures and a growing aversion to global engagement.
These tariff levels echoed the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 — widely credited with exacerbating the Great Depression and triggering a wave of retaliatory protectionism worldwide. That historical precedent is not lost on economists, yet the US government appears determined to repeat its past mistakes. By resurrecting such punitive trade policies, Washington signaled ignorance of history and indifference to the suffering these policies have inflicted on global markets and developing economies. Moreover, this approach was not isolated, but was part of a broader regression pattern: slashing foreign aid budgets, snubbing traditional allies, withdrawing from international treaties, and advancing proposals to seize foreign territories with a colonial logic that belongs to a bygone era. These actions reflected a deeper erosion of norms and a dangerous shift in geopolitical thinking.
This disregard for multilateral principles is particularly visible in the US’ treatment of the World Trade Organization. Having once played a crucial role in its creation, the country now routinely circumvents its rules and rulings. The WTO has criticized Washington’s unilateral tariffs, yet US officials have dismissed these judgments and escalated their combative approach. This selective adherence to international law, where the US only follows the rules that align with its interests, undermines the legitimacy of global institutions and the credibility of the country as a responsible global actor.
The rationale offered by US policymakers — that these tariffs protect domestic industry and preserve employment — has not stood up to scrutiny. Protectionist policies have not revived the sectors they claim to support. Instead, they have led to higher production costs and consumer prices, and disrupted supply chains while failing to achieve any meaningful resurgence in manufacturing employment. Despite their ineffectiveness, the persistence of these measures suggests that economic logic has been subordinated to political expediency.
At the heart of this policy shift lies a more profound ideological transformation. The US no longer operates within the boundaries of traditional isolationism or cooperative internationalism. Instead, its posture is distinctly unilateralist — eschewing partnership in favor of pressure, and negotiation in favor of imposition. It is a vision of global engagement rooted in dominance, not dialogue. This approach is not only destabilizing the international system but also marked by glaring contradictions. While condemning China for alleged unfair practices, the US enacted sweeping subsidies through initiatives such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act, distorting markets wantonly.
These contradictory policies are further justified through vague and unsubstantiated claims. China is accused of “nonmarket behavior” or “overcapacity” without clear definitions or empirical validation. For instance, the accusation of “nonmarket behavior” often refers to alleged state subsidies. In truth, China’s advancements in sectors such as renewable energy are the result of deliberate investment, innovation and scale — precisely the kind of achievements that market competition is expected to reward. The US’ failure to match such progress should prompt introspection, not scapegoating.
In contrast, China has demonstrated strategic composure despite persistent US provocation, and has continued championing multilateral cooperation and inclusive development. Its initiatives, often mischaracterized by critics, have delivered tangible benefits: improved infrastructure, expanded energy access, and technological empowerment across the Global South. These efforts reflect a commitment to shared advancement, not exclusionary dominance.
The portrayal of China as a revisionist threat is a narrative constructed to deflect attention from America’s departure from established norms. The US’ retreat from globalization is not a reaction to external challenges but an outcome of domestic disarray — driven by populism, misinformation, and inward-looking nationalism. This convergence of protectionism and ideological retrenchment poses a serious risk to global stability, a concern that should be at the forefront of our collective consciousness.
As emerging economies gain influence and new frameworks for cooperation take root, the international community is evolving beyond the shadow of US hegemony. The world no longer waits for Washington’s approval. Rather than resisting this transformation, the US should recognize it and adapt. A return to cooperative engagement grounded in humility and mutual respect is desirable and necessary in this evolving global landscape.
The appropriate course of action is reconciliation, not escalation. The US should abandon its punitive tariffs, especially those imposed without international consultation or evidence-based justification. It should recommit to open, rules-based trade principles.
Authentic leadership lies not in coercion but in collaboration. The promise of shared prosperity can be restored only through such a renewal of purpose. The global community thrives not when one nation imposes its will on others but when all nations work together in mutual respect and good faith.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
