Voices rose in sharp warning of the emergence of a renewed cold economic war between the two giants of the global economy: the United States of America and China. These skirmishes arose from the tariffs that were enacted. The United States imposed tariffs of 25% on Chinese imports valued at approximately $34 billion annually, while also moving toward imposing an additional 10% tariff on Chinese imports worth $200 billion annually.

There is no doubt that such an action is capable of producing negative effects that strike at the core of the Chinese economy, which exports more than $500 billion annually to the United States. The first of these effects is the increased cost of exporting to the United States, which leads to a decline in export output and, consequently, a decline in gross domestic product. This decline then affects the credit rating, raising the cost of borrowing and reducing the level of foreign direct investment from other countries.

Every action has a reaction. Accordingly, China responded with a threat to raise tariffs on American imports, whose value reaches $130 billion annually. This statement was enough to face political opposition from Americans, opposition tinged with dismissal, on the grounds that such a measure would not compensate for what the Chinese economy would suffer as a result of higher tariffs on Chinese imports in the United States.

From all of this, it becomes clear that the political leadership is fully aware of a broader picture: that Chinese imports into the United States consist largely of raw materials used by American businesses whose products are later exported abroad. In other words, if tariffs on Chinese imports into the United States rise, this will produce a sharp decline in American exports to other economies. Export output will therefore decline, and gross domestic product will decline as well. This decline will then lead to higher unemployment, lower foreign direct investment, and a higher cost of borrowing.

Despite all these consequences, the United States finds itself in a position where it understands that the impact on China will be harsher and more severe. The first question that arises is this: how much of American imports into China is re-exported? Does that amount resemble the share of Chinese imports into the United States that are re-exported? Certainly not. The second question is this: if 700,000 employees in the United States were to lose their jobs, would the American political leadership be able to preserve security and stability? The political systems of the United States and China are entirely different, and the cost of living for the Chinese citizen is far lower than that of the American citizen.

If we analyze the situation from a cost-benefit perspective, the results suggest that the United States’ action lacks economic objectivity. We will therefore turn to political objectivity and ask whether the cost-benefit analysis serves the United States from that angle. Nothing strengthens this turn more than Donald Trump’s tweet, in which he stated that China had not supported the United States in confronting North Korea over the nuclear weapons issue. The central question, then, is this: are the tariffs a retroactive punishment for China’s failure to align with the United States?

To interpret this, we must view the entire picture without neglecting any of its facts. To begin with, such an action is nothing more than a negotiating card created to serve a future objective. This political objective may have been anticipated by the White House in a way that suggests its future economic returns outweigh its current economic costs. The intention may be to limit China’s development in artificial intelligence, as writer Amer Mohsen discussed in his recent article, or it may be something else. Yet what should not be overlooked is that crises and confrontations among great powers usually reduce the cost of a major state’s service to smaller states, as those great powers in conflict search for the largest possible coalition of smaller allies.

And since one matter recalls another, I must express pride in what has been planned at the international level, which reflects a political and economic shrewdness we are in great need of. From my point of view, even if Kuwait’s domestic politics currently lack the ability to keep pace with such shrewdness, His Highness’s move to cooperate with China and take advantage of that lower cost in order to build a resilient Kuwaiti economy is a matter that promises abundant good. If the responsible administrative competencies unite in pursuit of realizing His Highness’s vision, then keeping pace with this development and achieving this change becomes nothing but an inevitable matter, dependent on time and effort, whenever an environment ready for development exists — if, and only if, we withstand the slide into a point of no return.

How does trade wars and small-state economic strategy affect Kuwait?

Its effect appears in how costs, incentives, and resources are managed, and in Kuwait's ability to turn decisions into sustainable value. The direct context is u.S.–China tariff tensions, their economic logic, and why Kuwait’s strategic cooperation with China may offer opportunity.

How does the factor of risk affect the success of public debate?

Debate supports reform when it seeks evidence and results; it obstructs reform when it becomes accusation, denial, or short-term gain. This makes risk an important test that separates temporary treatment from capacity that can endure.

How does the factor of risk affect the success of living standards and productivity?

Living standards cannot remain stable without real productivity, because welfare funded externally or by a depleting resource remains vulnerable. This makes risk an important test that separates temporary treatment from capacity that can endure.

How does the factor of risk affect the success of rentier culture?

Rentier culture links gains to the state more than to production, making reform look like a threat rather than a necessary transition. This makes risk an important test that separates temporary treatment from capacity that can endure.