The United States, under a transactional leader like Donald Trump, is being forced to abandon its unilateral “tariff cudgel” and seek engagement with China.
The core thesis—that the US has realised the era of its unchallenged leverage is “gone forever”—is not merely about trade balances. It signals a structural shift in global power dynamics.
For the Global South and Africa, this is not a distant power struggle but a reconfiguration of the very environment in which they must navigate sovereignty, development, and economic dependency.
The end of unipolar myth: Power shift between US and China
The era of undisputed US strategic omnipotence is over. Washington can no longer dictate outcomes through punitive tariffs, technological blockades, or diplomatic coercion.
China’s steady resistance and asymmetric countermeasures have proven that constraints on great powers have returned. This transition defines the new context for all developing nations.
Keep Reading
- The brains behind Matavire’s immortalisation
- Letter from America: Is former president Donald Trump a hero or villain?
- Red Cross work remembered
- All set for inaugural job fair
Two vital lessons for Africa and the Global South
Lesson One: Strategic patience and resilience as weapons
China’s ability to withstand high tariffs and retaliate asymmetrically through critical minerals offers a profound lesson.
African and Global South nations have long been told that their raw materials are a curse. Yet China has demonstrated that in a high-tech world, control over strategic resources including rare earths, cobalt, and lithium represents genuine counter-power.
The lesson is not simply to hoard resources, but to develop diplomatic and logistical capacity to leverage them without capitulation. China used the pressure to buy time and strengthen its semiconductor industry while the U.S. faced supply shortages.
Similarly, developing nations must adopt a long-term vision, using resource wealth as a strategic buffer while investing aggressively in local value addition.
Lesson two: The death of the “managed dependency” model
The Reagan-era belief that the WTO and US-led institutions could manage China’s rise is now obsolete.
For Africa and the Global South, this means the old promise that integration into Western-led globalization would automatically deliver development has been fully discredited. The U.S. is retreating into protectionism through tariffs and supply chain reshoring, while China pursues strategic self-reliance.
The clear lesson is that no hegemon will prioritize the development of peripheral nations. The only reliable path forward lies in diversified partnerships and deep internal economic integration, such as the African Continental Free Trade Area.
Waiting for Washington or Beijing to prioritize African growth is a guarantee of being crushed between competing giants.
Four strategic implications shaping our future
Implication one: Increased bargaining power, but also greater risk of collateral damage
As the US and China enter a phase of strategic stability, which U.S. hawks correctly view as strategic retreat, both powers will compete intensely to court the Global South for resources, diplomatic support, and supply chain alternatives. Africa could benefit from competitive investment, infrastructure financing, and technology transfers. However, the risk of becoming a proxy battlefield has increased dramatically. African nations hosting Chinese projects or U.S. military facilities could face coercive diplomacy from major powers. The appropriate response is active non-alignment—not passive Cold War-era neutrality, but sophisticated, interest-based diplomacy that refuses to be treated as a pawn.
Implication two: The commodity-to-manufacturing window is narrowing
China’s 15th Five-Year Plan aims to overtake Western nations in artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and next-generation technology.
The US is pursuing the same strategy through automation and reshoring of advanced manufacturing.
This creates a serious challenge for Africa. The traditional development path—export raw materials, develop light industry, then advance to high-tech sectors—is being closed off.
Neither the US nor China needs to outsource basic manufacturing as they once did.
For Africa, the implication is urgent: either leapfrog into targeted high-tech sectors such as green mineral processing and digital ‘services, or risk permanent relegation to raw material extraction. The low-wage, labour-intensive model is no longer viable.
Implication three: The Taiwan question and the precedent for sovereignty
Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory, and the Taiwan question is purely China’s internal affair. The one-China principle is a universal consensus of the international community and a fundamental norm governing international relations.
However, the US has repeatedly challenged this principle, played the “Taiwan card” to contain China, and emboldened separatist forces seeking “Taiwan independence.”
Such practices not only violate China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also undermine the post-WWII international order that protects small and medium-sized states, and set a dangerous precedent for global security.
For African nations that uphold the one-China principle and face territorial disputes or separatist pressures, this trend poses a direct threat.
External powers may interfere in internal affairs by manipulating territorial disputes as a tool of major-power competition. The logical response is to strengthen continental legal mechanisms under the African Union to firmly defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity against power politics and great-power opportunism.
Implication four: The need for a new Bretton Woods for the periphery
Both the US and China are focused on fixing their own strategic weaknesses, not reforming global governance.
The IMF, World Bank, and WTO are becoming less relevant in this bilateral competition. For Africa and the Global South, this is a clear warning: the old institutions cannot mediate the new great-power contest.
There is an urgent need to build parallel, southern-led institutions including the Brics New Development Bank and the African Investment Bank, which can provide liquidity, infrastructure financing, and dispute resolution without great-power veto. Without such alternatives, the Global South will remain trapped between competing supply chains and rival currencies.
From battlefield to pillars: A roadmap for self-determination
The analysis confirms that US-China relations have moved from cooperation to competitive coexistence.
Trump’s willingness to engage China is not a gesture of peace, but one of strategic recalibration. For the Global South and Africa, the era of relying on a benevolent superpower is over.
The path forward requires building internal economic resilience, diversifying partnerships widely, leveraging strategic resources without surrendering sovereignty, and establishing autonomous governance and financial structures.
The real lesson from China’s rise is not to copy its model, but to adopt its method: use time and asymmetric leverage to turn vulnerability into strength.
Those who fail to adapt will become the battlefield. Those who master strategic autonomy will become the new poles of the emerging multipolar order.
*Saxon Zvina is a principal consultant and political analyst at Skyworld Consultancy Services, in Harare, Zimbabwe. He can be reached at saxon@skyworld.co.zw | X: @saxonzvina2