US President Donald Trump is well known for his bombastic style but his hegemonic tariff policy announcements last week and this week surpass all his previous madcap antics on the global stage.

Even some of Trump’s diehard endorsers such as American billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman have voiced their fears about his sledgehammer tariff policy. Responding to the “Liberation Day” announcement, Ackman wrote that “the president has an opportunity on Monday to call a time-out and have the time to execute on fixing an unfair tariff system … alternatively, we are heading for a self-induced, economic nuclear winter, and we should start hunkering down.”

Well, Monday has passed and, as perhaps even Ackman expected, not only has Trump not changed his mind but he has meanwhile even doubled down on his coercive trade policy by imposing additional tariffs of 50 percent on Wednesday — a move that would drive the overall levies on Chinese goods to a nonsensical 104 percent.

As one would expect from a nation that has endured bullying by the West since the 19th century, Beijing has vowed, understandably, to “fight to the end” against “blackmailing” by the United States, reaffirming that it would “never accept” Trump’s usurious tariffs.

Commentators in the US and elsewhere have even likened Trump’s tariffs to “economic terrorism” — certainly a term that comes across as shrill but, nevertheless, hits the nail on the head. Mitchell A Sobieski, a journalist for the Milwaukee Independent, wrote in an article headlined Milwaukee Braces for Trade Shockwave after Trump Uses ‘Liberation’ Tariffs to Attack Global Economies, that “the comparison of Trump’s tariffs to ‘economic terrorism’, a term with no formal legal definition but used in global policy discourse” is beginning to surface in policy analysis and media commentary.

“In this framing, the defining traits are intentional disruption of economic stability, broad civilian harm, and coercive policy aims.”

According to Sobieski, “the definition of economic terrorism, in this context, refers to the deliberate use of state economic power to destabilize markets, inflict civilian hardship, and exert political pressure without military engagement … it describes a pattern of intentional, disproportionate disruption designed to cause financial suffering, provoke retaliation, and collapse cooperative structures.”

His article emphasizes that “when policies are deployed not to solve economic problems but to manufacture a crisis for strategic gain, they cease to be governance and enter the territory of coercion. This is not a trade policy. It is a doctrine of economic violence.”

I am quoting from Sobieski’s article at length because I couldn’t agree more.

It also reaffirms my belief — and fear — that future wars will not only be fought with military means but also, or even mainly, with economic means. Of course, artificial intelligence has already joined the fray.

Well, that’s where the call for the so-called “bazooka” response to Trump’s tariff threats by a growing number of European Union politicians, namely from France, Spain and Germany, comes in.

The “bazooka” is a portable, shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon. It was developed by the US during World War II and is able to penetrate armor. It was effectively deployed first by the US and later also by the German army.

In EU jargon, the “bazooka” is the bloc’s anti-coercion instrument, which aims to punish any country using economic threats to exert pressure on the EU once diplomacy fails. Within the Trump tariff context, it gives Brussels potentially far-reaching powers such as restricting US companies from public tenders and limiting trade on services. Export-dependent Germany, the world’s third largest exporter after China and the US, has said that the EU should be prepared to deploy the “bazooka” if diplomacy fails to deliver.

I am all for it. If push comes to shove, Trump needs to feel the heat in order to convince him to get back on the right track of economic diplomacy.

I also think that Beijing, together with the other BRICS members (Brazil in particular) as well as Brussels, major European governments (in Berlin, Paris, London, Rome, and Madrid) and many others should coordinate their response to Trump’s coercive tariffs that are indications of his outdated hegemonic thinking at a time when the world needs globalization more than ever before, so that it can tackle the many issues that our planet is facing — poverty, climate change, pandemics, hunger, housing, education, and the like.

Trump lives in the past. Even the US as the world’s (still) top economy needs globalization to succeed.

Tariffs per se are not always wrong — but those resulting from coercive trade policies certainly are.

Unlike strategic tariffs imposed to protect fledgling industries or punish targeted violations, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs function more as a sweeping disruption mechanism, as Sobieski rightfully points out. April 2 was not a “Liberation Day” for the US, but the opposite, it was its subjugation to outdated economic concepts such as hegemony and isolationism.

“Their impact is already inflicting pain far beyond political elites or offending firms. It is landing first on consumers, laborers, and small businesses. That alone shifts the moral framework of the policy,” Sobieski wrote.

As an eternal optimist but also as a diehard realist, I do hope that Trump and his retinue will soon realize that their tariff threats are the wrong way to “Make America Great Again”. I do not have any problem with his attempt to make his country great again, but please do it based on the age-old principle of treating others the way you want to be treated. I am sure that all the world’s philosophical systems and creeds are in agreement on this principle, for the simple reason that it is an expression of common sense.

Coercive and hegemonic tariffs make no sense in the 21st century.

Besides, in a radio address to the nation on Sept 7, 1985, the then-US president, Ronald Reagan, famously said, “American exporters and American workers deserve a fair shake abroad, and we intend to see they get it. Our objective will always be to make world trading partnerships freer and fairer for all. So, while we will use our powers as a lever to open closed doors abroad, we will continue to resist protectionist measures that would only raise prices, lock out trade, and destroy the jobs and prosperity trade brings to all. There are no winners in a trade war, only losers.” I wonder whether Trump is aware of his fellow Republican’s wise remarks.

For the benefit of the whole world, I hope that China-US trade ties get back on track sooner rather than later. We all would benefit from it.

What we need is cool-headed politics — rational decision-making and composure under pressure. The aim should be that, ultimately, there will be no need to deploy “bazookas” to prevent an economic nuclear winter.

The author is a director of The Macau Post Daily.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

(This is an abridged version of the author’s article published in The Macau Post on April 9, 2025)