US-China trade tariffs: The clash of national grievances
US-China Trade Tariffs: The clash of national grievances
WRITTEN BY DR ANISA HERITAGE
30 April 2025
Many world leaders braced themselves for more volatility in their relations with the US following Donald Trump’s 2 April Liberation Day speech, in which he spoke about reclaiming American destiny, the rebirth of American industry, and ultimately, “to make America wealthy again”. ‘Liberation’ connotes ideas of release, unshackling, and deliverance and is meant to indicate that, henceforth, the US will no longer tolerate disrespect from other states.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) has faced the heaviest tariffs, initially of 104 per cent, and rising to 125 per cent following Beijing’s implementation of 84 per cent retaliatory tariffs and export controls. The PRC is also excluded from the subsequent 90-day suspension of tariffs, although smartphones and computers are exempt (currently) from the 125 per cent levies on Chinese imports into the US.
But tit-for-tat mutual tariff increases over 100 per cent are meaningless. Such high tariff rates are prohibitive for most bilateral trade and are largely symbolic. If this is the case, what is driving the escalatory level of the response?
National grievance and respect
The rapid escalation of bilateral retaliatory tariffs has been triggered by deeper grievances about a lack of respect from the other. Respect conveys ideas of recognition, appreciation, and even deference.
On 10 April, a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) foreign ministry spokesperson declared that China would “not sit idly by” while the “legitimate rights and interests [of the Chinese people] are denied”. In response to President Trump’s comment that China wants a deal but does not know how to go about it, the spokesperson responded, “If the US truly wants to talk, it should let people see that they’re ready to treat others with equality, respect and mutual benefit”.
On Truth Social, Trump declared that the decision to raise tariffs to 125 per cent was “based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets”. He went on to assert that, “Hopefully in the near future, China will realise that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable”.
The Trump administration's instigation of its trade liberation policy has generated fear about how it might also rashly unshackle itself from longstanding security arrangements.
‘Respect’, or the lack thereof, is both the heart of the grievance as well as the precondition for talks. Until respect is forthcoming, an end to the tariff hikes is unlikely.
In the realm of international relations, respect and associated ideas of status and identity are closely interconnected. Respect infers ideas of recognition by others — of one’s status or position in the hierarchy of international society. The denial of respect, for instance, of one’s cultural or economic contributions or achievements, leads to motivations to respond assertively to acts of perceived disrespect to save face. A perceived lack of respect underpins the national grievance narrative utilised by Washington and Beijing, which speaks to the nationalist tendencies in both countries.
Trump centres his national grievance narrative on the disrespectful treatment of the US over trade. This emotive narrative reinforces in the American psyche that not only have Americans been duped and abused by the unfair trade practices of other states, but also that others have become wealthy and powerful at the US’ expense. The Liberation Day speech emphasises grievance and exploitation, lamenting the loss of American agency due to the actions of others and thereby reinforcing the sense of disrespect. The unshackling of the US economy from unfair trade relations — its ‘liberation’ — underpins the sense of grievance hyped by the administration’s ‘America First’ strategy. In the Trumpian worldview, US global dominance can only be established by playing hardball – tearing up the rule book and eschewing long-time allies and partners. Putting ‘America and American citizens first’.
Beijing has viewed the recent round of restrictions and tariffs through its own grievance lens: ongoing US attempts to stifle Chinese advancement and to contain China, which forces the PRC to respond to defend its national interests. In response to Liberation Day, the PRC’s State Council Information Office published a White Paper on China-US economic and trade relations, which outlines a litany of grievances against protectionist and unilateral US trade policies. The White Paper underscores the punishment of China that the US has “continued to politicalise, weaponise, and instrumentalise export controls, imposing sanctions and suppressive measures on various industries and enterprises”. Stressing Beijing’s long-held grievance over US containment (in essence, the loss of Chinese agency over its own development), the White Paper griped that the US is “depriving the vast number of developing countries, including China, the right to achieve technological advancement”.
Vice President Vance further heightened Beijing’s grievance with his Fox News interview on 3 April, asserting that the US “borrow[s] money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture”. When asked about the comments, on 8 April, the spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry responded, “It’s both astonishing and lamentable to hear this vice-president make such ignorant and disrespectful remarks”. The comments unleashed state-mandated condemnation. China’s Director of Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Bureau forcefully responded to US attempts to suppress China. In his speech on national security, he iterated that, “The U.S. isn’t after our tariffs but our very survival”.
The liberation of US trade?
Both the US and the PRC have weaponised national grievances as a defence mechanism in the past month. Grievance requires the other to act first to rectify the perceived affront. The focus on respect and national grievance as conditions of de-escalation makes the prospect of finding an off-ramp harder to achieve.
On 10 April, Beijing declared it would “fight to the end” against Washington’s unilateralism despite knowing this may bring bilateral trade to a standstill. China’s leaders will not engage in Trump-style diplomacy that might threaten their authority and status and not deliver tariff relief. Nonetheless, a potential off-ramp was offered to Washington on 16 April. According to Bloomberg, Beijing outlined steps that the US can take to demonstrate ‘respect’ before it will agree to talks. These include kerbing the disparaging remarks made by members of Trump’s cabinet and concrete steps such as more consistency in US diplomacy and a willingness to address China’s concerns about American sanctions and Taiwan. Xi will demand a deal hammered out prior to any meeting between the two leaders. Beijing has reportedly eschewed concessions to Washington.
Since Liberation Day, Trump and his core team have repeatedly invited Beijing to make a deal. Foreign Policy reported that Trump was angered by Beijing’s decision to swiftly retaliate with its own tariff hikes – without first calling Trump to negotiate terms. The White House message is that the ‘ball is in China’s court’. But, the liberation of US trade comes with unrealistic demands on Beijing. On 23 April, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent admitted that current tariffs were unsustainable and signalled openness to de-escalation — if Beijing acts first. Bessent affirmed that fundamental changes are needed to China’s economy — terms hardly likely to bring Beijing to the negotiation table.
What happens next depends on whether both leaders want to move forward.
Higher stakes
As long as the conditionality of respect prevails, coupled with a focus on grievance, neither side will fundamentally change its position, especially since each side demands concessions from the other as the opening salvo for talks. The dominance of the grievance narrative — where each side is being disadvantaged by the other — further entrenches their negative views.
On the one hand, Beijing’s preoccupation with historic grievances makes it very sensitive to any US activity that looks like containment. The recent tariff war only creates further uncertainty or even reinforces the belief that the US is an unreliable negotiating partner. On the other hand, the America First approach, with its focus on putting right past wrongs, has subjected US allies, partners, and adversaries to tariffs, with few exceptions. Trump has additionally cast doubt on the reliability of existing US security commitments to its Asian allies. This is a risky strategy.
Entrenched positions over trade increase the chance of strategic recalibration — of economic decoupling and a fundamental reordering of the global economy. However, East Asian regional dynamics preclude the separation of trade and security strategies — these are intertwined. If PRC-US relations further decline over tariffs, tensions could spill over into other areas of the relationship, resulting in higher stakes and an increasing likelihood of misunderstanding leading to conflict.
The Trump administration's instigation of its trade liberation policy has generated fear about how it might also rashly unshackle itself from longstanding security arrangements. In this case, Taiwan is the most likely victim. Trump’s past statements cast doubt on whether the administration would defend the island. Beijing might conclude that Trump’s grievances about Taiwan’s semiconductor industry are a higher priority to the administration than preserving Taiwan’s self-governing status. Consequently, Beijing might be emboldened in its plans to blockade the island before the end of the Trump administration.
Liberation Day has yet to reveal its most far-reaching consequences.
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.
Author biography
Dr Anisa Heritage is Senior Lecturer, Department of Defence and International Affairs, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, UK. The views and opinions expressed in this article are strictly those of the author, from open sources, and do not represent the views or policies of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, the UK Ministry of Defence or the UK government. Image credit: Flickr/The White House (cropped/edited).