The trade war, unilaterally launched by Donald Trump on April 1, 2025, will go down in global history as a hostile act against globalization and international rules — rules that were once defended by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United States themselves. This act also marks one of the first official signs of the collapse of the post-war world order.
“Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement at the White House on April 2, 2025. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The principle of “reciprocity of customs duties,” invoked by the American president, prompts us to reflect not only on tariff policies, but more importantly on the deeper stakes involved — those surrounding natural resources and the currencies used in international trade. The trade war is not simply about figures or customs duties: it goes far beyond.
When the United States imposes tariffs, it is not just to increase the cost of imports — it is to force other actors, particularly China, to respond.
Tariffs are not merely taxes; they are above all economic weapons in the hands of global powers used to impose their worldview. The U.S. policy of tariff reciprocity seeks to apply direct pressure on Chinese industries, and in return, China aims to weaken the competitiveness of American exports. This escalation inevitably impacts global supply chains: China is today the world’s largest industrial engine, while the United States is its biggest consumer.
Uncertainty over supply and demand acts like a virus capable of destabilizing the global economy. Without consensus among major actors, companies will relocate their production — temporarily or permanently — seeking more stable and profitable markets. In this way, the trade war is actively redefining the global economy.
Within this context, control over vital sectors such as mining, technology, energy, and agriculture becomes essential. The United States depends on China for rare earths, electronic components, and manufacturing capacity. Conversely, China depends on the U.S. for agricultural products, financial services, and certain high technologies. Neither side can afford to lose these advantages.
The true objective of this trade war is to force stakeholders to the negotiating table. It is a power struggle. Great powers use tariffs as a strategic tool to impose their vision. But if a country is not economically strong enough, it risks devastating its own economy by entering this confrontation.
Economic retaliation cycles are nothing new. Throughout history, empires have used commerce as a weapon long before waging conventional war. In today’s world, states don’t only fight with armies — they fight with economics.
Yet global trade is not limited to these two superpowers. Every state seeks to defend its own interests.
So, can we now consider the trade war as a war of all against all? And how can weaker or less powerful states reposition themselves in this new world order to protect their interests? More importantly: how do we get out of this?
Trade War: A War of All Against All
Donald Trump’s statement before American workers at the White House was more than political posturing. It was a powerful symbol, a message to the world: the United States wants to reindustrialize and redirect its policies in favor of the working class — not just the financial markets.
The application of tariff reciprocity to all countries, indiscriminately, constitutes a unilateral declaration of trade war by America against the rest of the world. For Trump, every country takes economic advantage of the U.S., which in turn suffers from a growing trade deficit. Hence the need to defend itself through protectionist policy.
But while major powers clash to defend their interests, who will defend the interests of fragile states like Côte d’Ivoire or Senegal?
These countries, which produce very little, mainly export raw materials and import nearly all finished goods.
For the United States and China, the trade war may prove advantageous, as they have the means to negotiate. Trump’s goal is to force others to the negotiating table to reduce America’s trade deficit — just as Argentina is currently doing.
But what Trump has truly done is plunge the world into a state of nature, to borrow Hobbes’s term. In this condition, natural law prevails — meaning “the liberty each man has to use his own power for the preservation of his own life.” It is a world governed by brute force, where power replaces justice. This right, founded on unbounded individual desire, inevitably produces conflict, mistrust, and violence — in other words, a perpetual state of war.
Through his quest for total economic freedom and reciprocity, Trump views international rules—the WTO, multilateral agreements, etc. — as constraints on American power. For him, dismantling these rules would restore total U.S. dominance, as in the post–World War II era. But to negotiate in this Hobbesian state of nature, one must have something to offer.
Does Africa, today, possess the necessary resources to take a seat at the table? Or worse — has Africa, in this new disordered world, once again become the main course for the great powers?
Africa in Trump’s Trade War
Global trade is not limited to the United States and China. Every nation seeks to protect its own interests. In this context, can the trade war be seen as a war of all against all? And more importantly, how can weaker or less powerful states reposition themselves to defend their interests?
As mentioned in a 2019 article by Soko on the new forms of partnership between African states and major world powers:
- The Berlin Conference (1885) divided Africa — without Africans.
- The Yalta Conference redefined the post-war world — without Africa.
- The fall of the Berlin Wall marked the end of the Cold War and the start of a new wave of globalization — once again, without Africa.
Today, Africa finds itself once more watching from the sidelines, as the world enters a long and complex process of reorganization through trade warfare.
Will we remain passive?
If Africa was not previously invited to the decision-making table, it was because it was either colonized, fighting for decolonization, or busy building its institutions. But today, the context has changed. We are living through the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where computing, digital technologies, and natural resources — of which Africa holds over 40% — are becoming key strategic levers.
Thanks to the internet, we now better understand what is happening in the rest of the world. We can see how countries like Vietnam, Thailand, or Cambodia are developing. Vietnam, for instance, is now in a position to negotiate with the United States because it possesses both resources and an industrial base that give it real bargaining power.
But what do Africa’s 54 states have to offer, other than raw materials exported in their unprocessed form? None have truly industrialized their economies. They all import even the most basic goods—even toothpicks — and remain entirely dependent on foreign markets.
And yet, Africa possesses:
- Positive economic growth in recent years,
- A rapidly growing population (70% under the age of 35),
- 60% of the world’s arable land,
- And more than 40% of the critical resources needed for the global energy transition.
So, what are we lacking to negotiate like Vietnam? How can we defend ourselves in this global state of nature?
Africa Needs Leadership
There is only one answer to all these questions: leadership.
Africa is going through a true leadership crisis. It needs visionary leaders — leaders capable of dismantling the Africa shaped by the 1885 Berlin Conference, uniting its micro-states to speak with one voice, creating an enabling environment for local value creation through entrepreneurship, and strengthening energy sovereignty to accelerate industrialization.
If Vietnam, China, Singapore, or the United Arab Emirates were able to position themselves as global powers in the new world order, it is because they were led by visionary leaders who equipped their states to defend their national interests.
In a world that has become a state of permanent war, Africa can only survive by establishing some form of confederation of states, capable of pooling resources and defending territorial integrity without falling under external influence. The new world will be dominated by those who possess:
- A large population,
- a vast territory,
- sovereignty over their resources,
- a strong industrial base,
- and military power.
In the state of nature, peace is a rational goal. But to ensure peace, you must first guarantee your security. To guarantee your security, you must be able to defend yourself. And to defend yourself, you must possess the necessary resources.
In a world that has reverted to a Hobbesian logic, peace is no longer guaranteed by treaties or institutions but by the ability of states to defend their place in a competitive, unstable, and conflict-prone system.
Africa can only avoid further marginalization by embracing an ambition for power, built on unity, innovation, and economic sovereignty.
The trade war is more than a tariff dispute — it is a symptom of a global system without order, where only the most prepared will survive. For Africa, the time has come to stop being an object of history — and finally become a subject.
The Authors
- Bintu Zahara Sakor is a Doctoral Researcher at PRIO
- Vamo Soko is a Geopolitics Analyst and Consultant at Sackson Consultant Group focusing on Africa. He has a Master’s degree in Political Science and International Development from University of Paris – Sorbonne. He also holds a Business Administration and Management degree from INSEAD