Democracy on the line in global economic trade stand-off – The Mail & Guardian

Donald Trump’s executive orders are of dubious constitutionality, having violated civil rights of federal workers, weaponised immigration laws and limited Congress’s powers over the budget. (Graphic: John McCann/M&G)

The Great Depression of the 1930s had begotten severe protectionist policies, with governments around the world imposing rigid tariffs and world trade shrinking drastically as a result. Gradually protectionism eased off, coming to an end after World War II when the United States-led initiative to liberalise trade among all capitalist countries took root. The 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and its 1995 successor, the World Trade Organisation, opened the markets with the low-tariffs ideology becoming global in the wake of the collapse of communism.  

This rules-based economic system that the US helped create came to an abrupt and dramatic end on 2 April 2025 when Donald Trump imposed huge tariffs on nearly every country in the world, snapping handcuffs on international commerce and causing what some already call a global trade war. 

A mere week later, on 9 April, Trump stunned the world once more when he announced a 90-day “stay of execution” for the implementation of tariffs for all countries, except China which he punished for its retaliation with a 125% tariff. No one knows what will happen in three months’ time, but this confirms Trump’s obsession with tariffs, having said many times that it is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary”.   

Trump deemed roughly 60 countries to be the “worst offenders”, accusing them of unfair trade practices towards the US and calling them “countries that treat us badly”. 

South Africa is one of them.  

Holding up a chart listing countries accused of undermining American economic goals, Trump proudly professed this to be “our declaration of economic independence”.  

The very allusion this trumped-up (no pun intended) chart having anything to do with a document as fundamental to the idea of liberty and individual rights as the American Declaration of Independence, sticks in one’s throat like a bone. To say nothing of the overall hypocrisy. 

Imposing a 30% import tariff on South African goods, Trump has singled out the country for policies he says discriminate against white farmers. Clearly ignorant of the terms of the new Expropriation Act, he accused the South African government of discriminating against the Afrikaner minority by seizing their agricultural property without compensation. 

As if he cared about minorities. Prejudice against African Americans, Hispanics and, in particular, Muslims, is in Trump’s DNA. Even when he invokes the “we” when speaking of “making America great again”, the “they” pronoun slips in frequently when referring to non-white ethnic groups. Then it is “they” who want jobs, and “they” who want a better way of life. Bottom line: it is not about minorities; it is about defending white supremacy under autocratic rule.    

South Africa has also been accused of allegedly undermining US foreign policy that poses a threat to its national security. It is ironic that South Africa maintains friendly relations with Russia, America’s purported enemy, while the Trump administration is engaged in a major reconciliation with Moscow that could trigger the biggest reset in international relations since the collapse of the Soviet bloc.  

Small wonder then that Russia is missing from the “liberation” chart of the worst offenders. But this could be the carrot Trump uses to prompt the procrastinating Vladimir Putin to commit to peace talks with Ukraine in a war he had promised to end on “one day”. For Trump, losing face is not part of the game.

The exacting tariffs imposed on South African imports to the US do not bode well for the country’s economy. Agriculture and vehicle industries are especially vulnerable. The anticipated curtailing of the beneficial access to US markets through the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) looms large as another serious concern. Reduced export volumes can only exacerbate the country’s already evident economic weakness and financial strain — as the ongoing national budget debacle makes clear.  

President Cyril Ramaphosa and several other leaders of developing economies reacted cautiously to Trump’s announcements. While expressing concern about the unilaterally imposed punitive tariffs, Ramaphosa said that staying committed to negotiations with South Africa’s largest trading partner was the best way to establish a mutually beneficial trade relationship between the two countries.  

Responses from other leaders varied. The British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, also declared that the United Kingdom’s national interest demanded securing a trade deal with the US to avoid a trade war. But he did add that additional options were not “off the table”. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s stance was more determined, indicating his country’s intention to react with purpose and force. China chose immediate retaliation, slapping additional 34% tariffs on goods imported from the US.

Whether individual countries or the European bloc respond with appeasement or retaliation to Trump’s provocation, remains to be seen. What is already obvious is that both anger and alarm grow as the fuse to a global trade war has been ignited, with markets taking a plunge. But maybe we should not worry too much about that because the US secretary of state, Mark Rubio, assured us these were just “teething” problems.    

The still larger concern is that while the global economy is in deep trouble, so is the geo-political order as we knew it. Only a few months into Trump’s second presidency and the process of democratic erosion in the US is already in full swing. Besides issuing a string of executive orders of dubious constitutionality, the Trump administration has curtailed the powers of the Congress over the budget, repeatedly defied court rulings, violated the civil rights of federal workers, and weaponised US Immigration and Customs Enforcement laws.  

What are the future implications for global democracy when its former leading advocate is turning into a belligerent autocracy?   

Different scenarios can be contemplated. 

The pessimistic one can be glimpsed from the 2012 book The Globalization Paradox: Why Global Markets, States, and Democracy Can’t Coexist by Turkish economist Dani Rodrik, who refers to the “international trade trilemma”. He postulates that it is impossible for nations to achieve full economic globalisation while at the same time retaining full national sovereignty and democratic control. Prioritising the latter at the expense of globalisation seems a sensible way forward. 

Only that boat has already sailed. In addition to the deeply entrenched global trade interdependence, ecological frontiers refuse to align with geographical state boundaries. Meanwhile, the growing number of populist leaders trivialise and dismiss environmental concerns in favour of protecting industries critical to their electoral base. The current global economic trade standoff is bad enough; the failure to reach international environmental agreements will be worse. Dire consequences await humanity. 

The logical scenario is to work round the US, creating new multilateral trade alliances that would exclude it from global networks. Hard to do, but not impossible.  

“Democracy to the rescue” is the heading of the optimistic scenario. As Canada’s foreign minister, Mélanie Joly, stated: “Only the American people can stop this madness.”

The groundswell of discontent that we have witnessed in the “Hands Off” protests can only gain momentum, and not just in the US. 

Professor Ursula van Beek is the director of the Centre for Research on Democracy at Stellenbosch University.