The post-American age is on the horizon. AFP via Getty Images

Although the White House insists it used a sophisticated formula to calculate its ‘Liberation Day’ tariff list, and even showed us its maths, can it really be a pure coincidence that if you type “What would be an easy way to calculate the tariffs that should be imposed onto other countries so that the US is on even playing-fields when it comes to trade deficits?” into almost any AI chatbot, you get just that set of tariffs?
Whether or not US trade policy is now being designed by White House interns who left their assignment to the last minute, Britain’s comparatively lenient treatment — if that’s what you can call a blanket 10% tariff — probably owes little to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s “calm-headed” approach. It’s really thanks to Britain’s trade deficit in goods with the US that it got off relatively lightly.
That’s little reason to celebrate. For one thing, sooner or later someone will explain service trade to Trump, whereupon Britain will get that furrowed-brow look, given the large surplus it runs with the US. But until then, Britain might persist in the hope that Starmer and Trump will reach a trade deal that will protect it from the President’s caprices.
They’d be unwise to bank on it, though. It’s true that Trump loves striking a deal. After some impressive diplomacy by the Mexican president, as well as some assiduous ring-kissing by a couple of Canadian provincial premiers, both Mexico and Canada were granted a slight reprieve from their assigned tariffs. In a moment of generosity, Trump decided to impose only the earlier tariffs he had put on them, rather than raising their rates further.
But that itself is reason to worry. As both the Mexicans and Canadians will tell you, Trump is perfectly capable of negotiating an agreement only to tear it up shortly after. So if he wakes up in a bad mood tomorrow, who’s to say what he’ll do. Plus he has indicated that if any country retaliates with tariffs of their own, he will ratchet up their rate, depending on how irritated he is feeling.
You’d be hard-pressed to find an economist anywhere who can discern any logic or strategy behind this approach. Using a tariff as a bargaining chip, or to exert pressure, is arbitrary and fickle, and doesn’t serve any obvious vision for building the country’s export capacity. Thanks to Trump’s tariffs, US coffee-drinkers will have to shell out more for their morning java. So too will chocoholics. And of course, it won’t lead to coffee or cocoa production coming to America, because America can’t grow tropical crops. The same goes for bananas and a host of other products whose Stateside prices will now shoot up. There was a time when Latin American tourists would fly to America with empty suitcases just to stock up on all the cheap clothes and groceries there. Now the direction of travel will reverse.
But while analysts scramble to find method in this apparent madness, they are probably missing the point. Madness may itself be the method. By constantly keeping his negotiating partners on the backfoot, Trump appears to believe he maximises his leverage in negotiations. It’s not clear whether this is true. After all, trade negotiations aren’t real-estate deals: they are vastly complicated, and tend to take place over many years and involve a fine-grained understanding of the sectors that will most benefit. In the trade negotiations Trump has carried out so far, the US has generally come off the worse, which is no doubt why he often renounces his own deals.
Worse, this keep-’em-guessing method is terrible for business. Thanks to his cryptic policy by tweet, the Economic Policy Uncertainty Index is now at levels only ever seen once before in the US: during the early-pandemic panic when stocks were crashing and the economy was collapsing. When the index reaches such levels, investment and spending tends to fall, which slows the economy. Given that the US economy is already decelerating, the double whammy of higher prices from tariffs and slower growth is going to create a vicious cycle in which those who can will put their money aside for a rainy day. It’s no surprise, then, that US stock markets tanked yesterday. Moreover, given how heavily invested ordinary Americans are in the stock market, this will further worsen the gloom.
What is equally significant, though, is that the Uncertainty Indices for major Asian economies — China, India, and Japan — aren’t showing similar levels of panic. Unlike the supplicants lining up outside the White House to beg clemency, the response of some Asian countries to the Trump tariffs appears to be neither to fight nor beg, but to ignore. China seems set to use its immense reserves of savings to stimulate local consumption while Malaysia says it will seek to diversify its trade away from the US. Growth in China, India, and the dynamo southeast Asian countries will take a hit, but it will continue.
Instead, the losers will be America’s erstwhile friends, in Europe and North America. The East will inevitably beckon, as Western countries look to reduce their dependence on the United States. Assuming China does engage in a programme of fiscal stimulus to boost domestic consumption, its trading partners will be keen to strike new deals to replace lost sales to America.
The bonds with America that are weakened today may never recover their intensity. The faith that neoliberal internationalists had after 2020 that Trump might only be an unpleasant interlude before a return to normality was this week proven wrong. If current polling trends continue, he may well leave office a reviled president. But he came to power off the back of the popular vote, and there will likely be future presidents who will uphold his legacy. For Trump speaks for a new America — one that appears to be here to stay.
No longer willing to play the part of the global policeman, the US is turning its back on the world and the world is reciprocating. Nations which fail to do so will live at Washington’s mercy. This mass pivot risks harming America’s economy long-term, while weakening its global heft. Already, we see the dollar plunging in value, as global investors realise the US is no longer the safe haven it once was. And if foreign investors no longer underwrite America’s debt, the damage to its economy will be deep and permanent.
In the end, then, the biggest victim of Trump’s attack on free trade will probably be America itself. This year, and possibly for several years to come, its economy will underperform compared to its recent rate, and the country will gradually lose influence over others as they diversify away from it. Meanwhile, the “exorbitant privilege” of the dollar’s status as a reserve currency may in time be lost, which will hurt the living standards of ordinary Americans. Unable to live off the world’s credit, they’ll need to cut their spending and pay higher prices.
All told, this will probably accelerate the transition to a post-American age, particularly as other countries are already starting to regard China as a more predictable partner. The tragic irony is that although Trump pledged to make America great again, he may end up making China great instead. As for Britain, it would probably be best not to hope for salvation in some kind of trade deal. The Atlantic Age died on Wednesday, and whatever “special relationship” might have existed will, to paraphrase a former vice president, be worth a bucket of warm spit.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt sounds like what Syria needs is a friend. Not Turkey, not Iran, not Russia. All these want a piece of Syria for what Syria can give to them, not vice versa. I suggest the US of A may be able to strongly invest in Syria to increase its prosperity and stability. Can al-Sharaa help this happen? One can hope ….
In consolidating secular power at the centre. That was their crime.
As I predicted months ago on another UnHerd article regarding the Middle East, the real horrors in Syria are only now being uncovered, the West in their support for the Syrian ‘rebels’ are complicit in the mass murder of Christians and Alawites. A certain UnHerd serial replier ‘El Uro’ called me a lunatic for saying so, seems our Zionist ‘friends’ in the Middle East are happy with the mass murder of Christians.
I believe that recent reports as to the number of Alawites massacred in recent days is closer to 3,000. Why did the the Alawites rise up? That question is not being adequately answered in the mainstream media. Any suggestion that it was on Asaad’s orders is nonsense, since fleeing and abandoning his fellow Alawites there are very few that would respond.
One thing is for sure, right now I wouldn’t want to be a member of the Alawite community, a Kurd or one of the remaining members of the Christian population that can trace its roots back to pre-islamic days – the barbarism that is being unleashed against these people is horrific.
Where are the protesters?
New regime wants peace and love for all mankind, but they’ll just take out the people who don’t match their particular Islamic and political mould; next its the Kurds, and shortly thereafter the Jews followed by Europe.
I imagine whst the new regime wants is simply what Turkey tells them they want. No more and no less. Regardless of whether they are genuinely seeking an multifaith, multicultural country (as per Lebanon in the 50’s and 60’s when Damascus was “The Paris of the ME”) they are only in power, and totally reliant on, support from Turkey and Turkish interests in the region.
There is an excellent interview on yu tube with Syrian, Kevork Almassian. It is a month old but he has the most compelling perspective on Syria and what has unfolded there so far this century that I have heard. I can’t post the link but it is titled Syria’s stolen future: war, sanctions & the globalist agenda exposed.
Could you please provide a link. I’d be very interested to watch it.
I put the title of the interview in my comment if you’re genuinely interested all you need do is paste it into the search bar. If you put the name Kevork Almassian into you tube many different interviews come up on screen. He has a channel called Syrian Analysis and can also be found on Twitter.
Where are the protesters?
Why would there be any protests? This doesn’t involve the Israelis.
True, it doesn’t feature any of the BBC and Guardian’s favourite baddies.
Fair point! If there’s no Jews, it’s not worthwhile news. Assad killed 500,000 people over 10 years, about 250,000 were killed in Yemen by Saudi Arabia. No, you haven’t heard (much) of any of this before. And there are hundreds of other such conflicts occurring in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere ….
No protests will happened until right wingers and Christians start playing the game properly – funding their own NGO networks and organising such things. Everything is a game.
“Syria’s confessional and ethnic patchwork of peoples has always been a source of both national pride and political instability”
What percentage of the population felt this “national pride”, I wonder.
A dominant group may feel pride at being able to oppress a wide range of other groups. This is the imperial mindset.
For ordinary citizens to feel pride in diversity, it must surely be in the context of a functional society where people willingly cooperate despite their differences, and harbour no serious grievances against others.
Has Syria ever been such a society?
Yes, the same as Lebanon, Iran, and Afghanistan. 50’s through 60’s.
Yes, and I think there was a pride felt there – once. Syria had been the cradle of many civilisations but then along came the 21st Century, 9/11 and the globalist agenda got into its stride with wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, regime change in Algeria, Syria etc.. US funding of groups such as Al Qaeda (they were on “our side” according to Jake Sullivan in an email to Hilary Clinton). The islamist cause has been fuelled by Western politicians (particularly American and British) and their foolish meddling. They created a monster that they can no longer control and simply abandon innocent people to suffer the nightmarish consequences.
Syria is going to break up obviously.
Has anybody ever controlled Syria?!
The Ottoman Empire?
Controlled-ish!
Syria and Iraq are states/countries artificially created by Britain and France a hundred years ago. They’ve only ever been effectively ‘controlled’ as unitary areas of power by brutal dictators.. the Assads and Saddam Hussein.
Even then they had minority groups rebelling constantly, eg the Kurds in the north.
But not a problem for anyone else…