A Tariff War is Not an Actual War

Bandar Abbas explosion of suspected rocket fuel shipped from China.

The new Tariff policy of the United States has been dealt with very differently in various countries, but the most successful approaches tend to be the ones that treat the tariff issues as tax issues, instead of national security issues. It will often be easier to challenge a tariff with a counter-tariff, and try to come to a meeting of minds where both parties benefit in a situation where one side has less power than the other. Working to eliminate as many tariffs as possible will leave some key sectors more vulnerable, but will also aid in having the best products win out in competition worldwide. Working for a country’s own self interests is a rationale response to a difficult economic environment, and those countries that apply added taxes on their own citizens will lose out as tariffs compound trade issues and force countries to compete or lose jobs.

When the Tariff War is taken as a Hot Conflict, the issues will most likely spiral into a self fulfilling security issue. Passive support given to acts that damage international trade will illicit a strong response, as some countries look to find cause to take trade issues beyond simply negotiating contracts. While newer events like China’s apparently intelligence support for Houthi targeting of US ships comes after the tariff complications, there is often a history of security issues that do not seem to be tied to tariff issues, but were always a persistent threat.

The recent explosion of rocket fuel materials at the port of Bandar Abbas in Iran looked to be shipped from China, materials used to make ballistic missile systems that have plagued many other nations in the region. Similar to the explosion at the port of Beirut a few years ago, the links between Iran’s regime to these events may be linked to similar materials from China in the past, but it is impossible to verify. With former Chinese PLA soldiers now known to be fighting with Russian forces in Ukraine and the Kursk region, tariffs may evolve to become only the first step in challenging security issues from China and other rogue nations.

With the recent election in Canada, there are many questions on how the rhetoric of the winning party has been applied in relations countering the United States. While the latest election was based on the belief by many in Canada that the US President wished to physically invade the country, past actions between the same Governing party in Canada and US adversaries show that there were many pre-tariff concerns for both Canadians and Americans.

Activities in the recent past between Canada’s Government and China’s PLA resulted in joint military training exercises to enable China’s PLA troops to fight more effectively in arctic conditions, skills likely used during the winter months on the front in Ukraine. Contact with NATO forces, strategies, and equipment is not something most of Canada’s NATO allies likely expected, and intelligence on equipment donated to Ukraine may have been used in the conflict. Canada’s contribution of Leopard 2A6 tanks makes up part of the NATO contribution of Leopard 2 combat systems, the most modern tank in Ukraine’s arsenal. Knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the Leopard 2 makes all NATO armies vulnerable in combat because of several combat exercises conducted between Canada and China over the last ten years, just a few hours from the US border.

With the same Government in power in Canada for the last ten years, ties with China’s Government only increased systemically in Canada. Language challenging tariffs often have a similar theme, and it must be questioned on why this might be the case. During the election itself, an opposition candidate was threatened several times by those affiliated with China’s regime, condoned by the Prime Minister’s campaign team. Two RCMP whistle blowers also came out during the campaign, naming many Cabinet Ministers of the previous Prime Minister and current Prime Minister with links to China’s regime. With rhetoric against the United States being the backbone of the election campaign, it must be made clear if Canada stands with its traditional allies, or if they wish to tie themselves to China’s falling regime. While it would be easier to just pay tariffs and taxes until an agreement can be made, influence in support of well established security issues against NATO allies has no future path to success. Look to the next few months on how relations over the northern border of the United States will develop. The best predictor of future results are past actions however, and these issues need to be addressed promptly.