The top economic advisor to President Donald Trump has revealed that Washington is using tariffs as leverage to try to force countries to pay the United States to help it maintain its global empire.
The chair of the US Council of Economic Advisers, Stephen Miran, delivered a speech on April 7 in which he outlined the Trump administration’s tariff strategy. An official transcript of his remarks was published by the White House.
Miran claimed that the United States provides two main “global public goods”: one, a “security umbrella” overseen by the US military; and two, the dollar and Treasury securities, which are used as the main reserve asset in the international financial system.
As the United Nations called for $275 million in aid for quake-hit Myanmar, neighboring China pledged 1 billion yuan (US$137 million), eclipsing the offers from other international donors.
The 7.7-magnitude earthquake, which struck March 28, has killed more than 3,600 people and damaged critical infrastructure across the country of 55 million people. That includes the main rail line between the commercial center, Yangon, the military’s administrative capital, Naypyidaw, and the worst-hit major city of Mandalay. Electricity and clean water supplies have been impacted and thousands of buildings, including hospitals and schools, have been damaged or destroyed.
The U.N. on Thursday called for increased funding and an immediate ceasefire in Myanmar, which is reeling from four years of civil war after a military coup. It appealed for $275 million to aid those in affected regions.
China was one of the first countries to donate aid when the quake struck, sending the first batch of $13.9 million in emergency aid to its southern neighbor days after what was Myanmar’s worst temblor in decades.
On Thursday, China pledged an additional $137 million to provide food, medicines and prefabricated homes, as well as pay for medical, epidemic prevention and disaster assessment expert groups, its embassy in Myanmar said in a statement.
The U.S., which has traditionally taken the lead in disaster response in the Asia-Pacific region, initially pledged $2 million after President Donald Trump quickly vowed to assist. Washington has since increased its commitment to $9 million.
However, three US Agency for International Development (USAID) workers deployed as a rapid response team discovered after arriving in Myanmar that their jobs had been eliminated as part of the Trump administration’s cost-cutting measures.
India, Myanmar’s western neighbor, was quick to send a search and rescue team, medical personnel, and a military transport aircraft filled with disaster relief. It has sent a further four aircraft and four ships carrying relief materials, a special military medical unit and members of its disaster agency.
Australia has pledged at least $7 million, and South Korea announced it would provide $2 million in initial humanitarian aid through international organizations. Vietnam sent a team of more than 100 rescuers, medical staff and sniffer dogs. Thailand, Russia, Japan, and Singapore have also sent rescue teams.
OCHA, the U.N. agency coordinating the emergency disaster response by its international humanitarian partners, said that by April 4, 25 donors had pledged $93 million to the earthquake response.
China’s latest donation will more than double what has already been pledged. It comes ahead of a high-profile visit next week by its President Xi Jinping to Southeast Asia.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Ginny Stein for RFA.
BANGKOK — President Donald Trump has seized on tariffs as the weapon to bend other countries, and particularly China, to his will as he tries to fulfil campaign pledges to make America great again. A topic that usually only occupies the minds of economists and CEOs has been elevated to water cooler conversation as stock market gyrations wiped trillions of dollars from investment funds and workers’ pension accounts. Despite China’s rapid growth since the 1990s, the U.S. economy remains preeminent and its tariff policy is consequential in every corner of the globe.
What is a tariff?
A tariff is simply a tax on trade and all countries impose tariffs to varying degrees. The importer of goods pays whatever tariff rate applies and this customs revenue goes to the government of the nation where the importer is located.
Why are tariffs imposed?
Historically, tariffs were an important source of revenue for governments. This role was diminished by income and consumption taxes and as countries gradually lowered tariffs in an era of global free-trade following World War II. Tariffs can be used to protect emerging or important industries—and jobs—from competition from cheaper imports, but this can also mean higher costs for consumers and businesses, and in time, reduced prosperity in the country that extensively erects such barriers. Tariffs can also be a tool of foreign policy, used by one country to punish another for policies or behavior that run counter to its national interest.
Why is China the main target of US tariffs?
In a stunning about-face, Trump this week paused sharply higher tariffs against dozens of countries for 90 days but escalated a trade war with China, imposing a total tariff of 145% on its exports, after Beijing retaliated with increased tariffs on U.S. goods. The U.S. has a litany of complaints about China’s trade and industrial policies such as subsidies that create an unfair playing field, barriers to U.S. companies operating in China, intellectual property theft and its massive trade surplus. The U.S. also has a mixed track record in some of these areas such as subsidizing farmers.
The Trump administration is hoping it can wound export powerhouse China and force it into concessions. It is not without risks because China through its purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds plays a key role in financing the U.S. government, which has spent more than it earned every year since 2001. This situation shows a fundamental interdependence between the U.S. and China despite a tense relationship. China’s central bank receives a torrent of U.S. dollars from the country’s exports to the U.S. and then parks those dollars in U.S. government bonds.
What are the deep trends at work?
For decades, the world economy has been organized around the principle that free trade boosts economic growth and prosperity overall. The rapid increase in living standards for hundreds of millions of Chinese from abject poverty in the 1970s is often cited as proof of that theory. In aggregate terms, the free-trade proponents appear to be right but the broad picture obscures the mix of costs and benefits. In the U.S., manufacturing has declined as a proportion of the economy and employment since the 1990s.
Many Americans benefited from cheaper goods such as TVs, clothing and iPhones manufactured in China and elsewhere in Asia but at the cost of other Americans losing stable factory jobs. It was the U.S. that paved the way for China’s entry into the world economy when President Richard Nixon established diplomatic relations in 1972, ending Beijing’s quarter century of isolation. The Make America Great Again moment in U.S. politics is one of the long-range reverberations of those seismic changes.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Stephen Wright for RFA.
BANGKOK — President Donald Trump has seized on tariffs as the weapon to bend other countries, and particularly China, to his will as he tries to fulfil campaign pledges to make America great again. A topic that usually only occupies the minds of economists and CEOs has been elevated to water cooler conversation as stock market gyrations wiped trillions of dollars from investment funds and workers’ pension accounts. Despite China’s rapid growth since the 1990s, the U.S. economy remains preeminent and its tariff policy is consequential in every corner of the globe.
What is a tariff?
A tariff is simply a tax on trade and all countries impose tariffs to varying degrees. The importer of goods pays whatever tariff rate applies and this customs revenue goes to the government of the nation where the importer is located.
Why are tariffs imposed?
Historically, tariffs were an important source of revenue for governments. This role was diminished by income and consumption taxes and as countries gradually lowered tariffs in an era of global free-trade following World War II. Tariffs can be used to protect emerging or important industries—and jobs—from competition from cheaper imports, but this can also mean higher costs for consumers and businesses, and in time, reduced prosperity in the country that extensively erects such barriers. Tariffs can also be a tool of foreign policy, used by one country to punish another for policies or behavior that run counter to its national interest.
Why is China the main target of US tariffs?
In a stunning about-face, Trump this week paused sharply higher tariffs against dozens of countries for 90 days but escalated a trade war with China, imposing a total tariff of 145% on its exports, after Beijing retaliated with increased tariffs on U.S. goods. The U.S. has a litany of complaints about China’s trade and industrial policies such as subsidies that create an unfair playing field, barriers to U.S. companies operating in China, intellectual property theft and its massive trade surplus. The U.S. also has a mixed track record in some of these areas such as subsidizing farmers.
The Trump administration is hoping it can wound export powerhouse China and force it into concessions. It is not without risks because China through its purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds plays a key role in financing the U.S. government, which has spent more than it earned every year since 2001. This situation shows a fundamental interdependence between the U.S. and China despite a tense relationship. China’s central bank receives a torrent of U.S. dollars from the country’s exports to the U.S. and then parks those dollars in U.S. government bonds.
What are the deep trends at work?
For decades, the world economy has been organized around the principle that free trade boosts economic growth and prosperity overall. The rapid increase in living standards for hundreds of millions of Chinese from abject poverty in the 1970s is often cited as proof of that theory. In aggregate terms, the free-trade proponents appear to be right but the broad picture obscures the mix of costs and benefits. In the U.S., manufacturing has declined as a proportion of the economy and employment since the 1990s.
Many Americans benefited from cheaper goods such as TVs, clothing and iPhones manufactured in China and elsewhere in Asia but at the cost of other Americans losing stable factory jobs. It was the U.S. that paved the way for China’s entry into the world economy when President Richard Nixon established diplomatic relations in 1972, ending Beijing’s quarter century of isolation. The Make America Great Again moment in U.S. politics is one of the long-range reverberations of those seismic changes.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Stephen Wright for RFA.
TAIPEI, Taiwan — Meta compromised U.S. national security and freedom of speech to do business with China, a company whistleblower testified before U.S. senators.
Sarah Wynn-Williams, a former global policy director at Facebook, told the U.S. Senate on Wednesday that Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg personally designed and implemented a content review tool for Facebook that was used in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
The tool, according to her, would automatically submit a Facebook post for review by a “chief editor” whenever it received over 10,000 views.
“One thing the Chinese Communist Party and Mark Zuckerberg share is that they want to silence their critics. I can say that from personal experience,” Wynn-Williams said at the congressional hearing.
This tool was operational in both independent Taiwan and China-controlled Hong Kong, where the Chinese Communist Party has been expanding its united front efforts.
China’s united front work combines influence, interference, and intelligence efforts to shape its political landscape. The country’s United Front Work Department is involved in activities ranging from controlling the Chinese diaspora and silencing dissent to gathering intelligence, promoting investment, and enabling technology transfer.
Sarah Wynn-Williams takes an oath before testimony to the U.S. Senate, April 9, 2025.(Mark Schiefelbein/AP)
Meta has disputed the claims by Wynn-Williams. Spokesperson Andy Stone told the AFP news agency that Wynn-Williams’ claims were “detached from reality and full of false allegations.”
“We [Meta] currently do not offer any services in China,” he said.
However, even though Meta’s platforms are banned in China, the company still makes a significant amount of revenue from Chinese businesses that advertise to global audiences. Meta’s financial filings indicate that China is one of its biggest sources of ad revenue outside the U.S.
Wynn-Williams also disclosed that Meta once considered building a data center in China – an action she warned could have endangered the personal information of American users. She added that Meta employees had briefed Chinese officials on Meta’s AI technologies.
The so-called “chief editor,” she said, was to oversee post content originating from Chinese-speaking regions such as China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
The editor had the power to not only review viral content but also to shut down Facebook services entirely in specific regions including Xinjiang or during sensitive dates such as the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.
According to Wynn-Williams, Chinese officials had reportedly tested the tool and even offered suggestions for its “optimization.”
“We must ensure you can block or filter images we don’t want people to see,” she said, quoting the communist party officials’ feedback for Facebook’s content moderation.
Facebook has a troubling track record on content moderation according to Ethan Tu, founder of Taiwan AI Labs, a non-governmental organization specializing in artificial intelligence and information warfare in Asia.
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, our lab noticed that many posts highlighting Taiwan’s pandemic success were censored on Facebook,” Tu told Radio Free Asia.
“However, false information about the U.S.’ COVID situation written in Chinese was not taken down.”
He stressed that the shadow ban on Facebook is a real issue, given that he had once made posts discussing Huawei and cybersecurity that resulted in zero reach, indicating an invisible suppression.
“During the Hong Kong anti-extradition protests in 2019, we also observed that posts related to the movement or democratic activism started disappearing all of a sudden. It seemed as if someone was deliberately censoring them,” he said.
Former Facebook staffer Wynn-Williams said the social network began making hundreds of content moderation decisions related to China even before 2009. By 2018, the platform had already been in direct discussions with the Chinese government for four years.
This contradicts Zuckerberg’s 2018 congressional testimony in which he claimed that since Facebook had been banned in China since 2009, “the company couldn’t be certain how Chinese laws would be applied to its content.” Wynn-Williams called the statement “inaccurate.”
“This is a man who wears many different costumes,” Wynn-Williams said.
“We don’t know what the next costume’s going to be, but it’ll be something different. It’s whatever gets him closest to power.”
Tu said Taiwan AI Labs’ research showed that only 1.6% of takedowns were related to disinformation or hate.
“The majority were tied to politically sensitive topics,” he said.
“What was once believed to be content moderation for stopping misinformation or hate speech turned out to be mostly about political sensitivity.”
Following Wednesday’s hearing, Senator Josh Hawley said he would further investigate whether Meta misled Congress during previous testimonies and would review additional internal documents provided by Wynn-Williams.
“This is just the beginning. We are going to get the truth,” Hawley said.
Edited by Mike Firn and Stephen Wright.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alan Lu for RFA.
On Wednesday, April 9, Trump announced that he is raising the tariffs on China to 125%. Earlier that day, China raised its tariff on all American imports to 84% in response to the US raising the total tariffs on Chinese exports to 104% on Monday. The new rates will be effective from Thursday, the Chinese state council said in a brief statement.
China also issued a white paper on Wednesday about its trade relations with the US. Published on the same day that Donald Trump’s so-called “reciprocal tariffs” regime went into effect, the white paper refutes his claims of a massive trade deficit with China.
On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth visited Panama to attend the Central American Security Conference, an initiative of the U.S. military’s Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). SOUTHCOM is one of the 11 unified combatant commands in the U.S. Department of Defense, responsible for contingency planning, operations, and security cooperation in Central and South America and the Caribbean.
During the conference, Hegseth announced a series of joint military operations with the Panamanian military, scheduled to take place from April 8 to 10.
U.S. tariffs on imports from China actually total 145%, the White House said Thursday, amid an escalating tariff war between the world’s two largest economies that threatens to upend global trade.
On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump announced he was raising tariffs on Chinese imports to 125%. But the White House said Thursday that did not include a 20% tariff the U.S. had previously imposed on China for fentanyl trade. Adding that in takes the new China tariffs total to 145%.
Trump raises China tariffs to 145%; U.S. and China businesses react
Trump’s tariff hike against China came as he announced a surprise 90-day pause on sweeping duties for more than 75 other countries. He said those countries had sought to negotiate with the United States and had not resorted to any retaliatory measures.
At a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Trump indicated he was open to working out a deal with China. He also warned that he would revert to higher tariffs if the U.S. does not reach a deal with many of its trading partners during the temporary tariff suspension period.
“If we can’t make the deal that we want to make, or we have to make, or that’s good for both parties … then we go back to where we were,” said Trump.
He declined to say whether he would extend the pause period in such an eventuality. “We have to see what happens at that time,” he said.
Trump also said he expects “transition cost and transition problems” related to his tariff measures. But he defended his actions, contending that the measures were helping the U.S. rake in billions of dollars every day.
Trader Phil Fralassini works on the options floor of the New York Stock Exchange, April 10, 2025.(Richard Drew/AP)
The market rollercoaster that began when Trump declared the tariff “Liberation Day” last week continued Thursday. U.S. benchmark stock indexes pared back much of the gains that had been made on Wednesday when the market had posted a historic rally.
“(China has) really taken advantage of our country for a long period of time. They’ve ripped us off… All we’re doing is putting it back in shape where we’re setting the table,” Trump told reporters on Thursday.
Trump open to deal with China
Notwithstanding the incipient trade war and tough rhetoric, Trump called Chinese President Xi Jinping a “friend” and indicated the U.S. would be open to working out a mutually beneficial deal.
“We’ll see what happens with China. We’d love to be able to work a deal,” Trump told reporters.
“I have great respect for President Xi. In a true sense, he has been a friend of mine for a long period of time and I think we’ll end up working out something that is very good for both countries. I look forward to it.”
In response to Trump’s latest tariff hike, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jiian said China does not want to fight trade and tariff wars, but will not flinch when a trade and tariff war comes.
China had announced its own retaliatory levies of 84% on all US imports.
On Thursday, Xi called for building a community with a “shared future with neighboring countries,” a move that analysts see as a strategic attempt by China to mitigate the impact of the ongoing tariff war with the U.S. through stronger engagement with South and Southeast Asian nations.
Xi’s statement at a conference on work related to neighboring countries came ahead of his official visit to Malaysia, Vietnam, and Cambodia next week.
Impact of trade war
China-based businessman Zhang Shengqi told RFA he expects both China and the United States to suffer in the short term from the trade war, but believes China will be hit harder in the long term due to its heavy dependence on exports to the United States.
The United States, on the other hand, can use this opportunity to promote the repatriation of the supply chain and gain negotiating advantages, and gradually rebuild its sovereign economic system, he said.
A worker at a factory that makes Christmas trees for export in Shaoxing, Zhejiang province, China, April 9, 2025.(Go Nakamura/Reuters)
“The 125% tariff imposed by the United States on China is not a real trump card, but a deterrent card, intended to reshape the global fair trade order and force China to renegotiate,” said Zhang.
A Taiwanese businessman, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals, said his friends and partners in mainland China feel helpless about the situation but are forced to accept the reality.
Operations of many factories in China have been cut back significantly, with only those that cater to the most basic needs of consumers still operating, he said, citing the examples of food, clothing, housing and transportation industries.
He pointed out that China earns more than $300 billion in annual trade with the United States. “If this export income is greatly reduced, it will have a huge impact on the Chinese economy,” he said.
A large number of factories that rely on exports to the United States may face a wave of closures, which will lead to large-scale unemployment, he added.
“Factories will be unable to repay bank loans, which will cause debt risks in the financial system. At the same time, the increase in the number of unemployed people will further hit domestic demand, creating a vicious cycle,” he added.
But experts warn there will also be negative effects on U.S. consumers, who have grown used to low-cost products made in China, and U.S. manufacturers that rely on inputs from China to sustain their business.
In 2024, U.S. exports to China stood at $143.5 billion, while imports totaled $439.9 billion, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
According to research published Thursday by The Budget Lab at Yale, Trump’s latest tariffs would hurt average American households, costing them $4,700 annually.
RFA Mandarin journalist Huang Chun-mei contributed reporting. Edited by Mat Pennington.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Tenzin Pema and Huang Chun-mei for RFA.
On Saturday 5 April, the Chinese government set out its position opposing the US’s unilateral imposition of tariffs on all its trading partners, including China. The statement correctly noted that these tariffs are in clear breach of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, and threaten to seriously disrupt the global economy. “Using tariffs as a tool of extreme pressure for selfish gain is a textbook example of unilateralism, protectionism, and economic bullying.”
It’s clear that China is the main target of the US’s tariff blackmail, which is being used to undermine China’s growth, to force China to accept the US’s terms of trade, to bully other countries into siding with the US against China, and to punish China for its success in building a modern economy and its refusal to bow down to US hegemony.
A social worker and rights activist was sentenced Wednesday to three years and nine months in prison for participating in a riot during Hong Kong’s 2019 pro-democracy protests.
Jackie Chen was one of several social workers who tried to mediate between police and demonstrators. She carried a loudspeaker and urged police to use restraint and to refrain from firing non-lethal bullets during a protest that took place on Aug. 31, 2019.
At Wednesday’s hearing in the Hong Kong district court, three co-defendants were sentenced to two years and five months in prison after entering a guilty plea. Chen, who pleaded guilty and got the stiffer sentence, had faced up to seven years in prison.
Police made more than 10,000 arrests during and after the 2019 protests, which began as a show of mass public anger at plans to allow the extradition of alleged criminal suspects to mainland China.
They broadened to include demands for fully democratic elections and greater official accountability.
Chen was acquitted in 2020, but prosecutors appealed and won a retrial in another example of the harsh stance that Hong Kong authorities have taken with political cases.
When Chen was convicted last month, Judge May Chung wrote in her verdict that Chen used her position as a social worker to support the protesters and used the loudspeaker to shout unfounded accusations against the police.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Cantonese.
Since 1565, the Philippines has been in the grip of one imperialist power after another. Even after independence, the archipelago remains a kind of functional US colony. Now, territorial conflict in the South China Sea could turn the Philippines into a battleground for US-China war. Josua Mata joins Solidarity Without Exception to discuss the Philippines long history of colonization and resistance.
Production: Ashley Smith Audio Post-Production: Alina Nehlich
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Ashley Smith:
Welcome to Solidarity Without Exception. I’m Ashley Smith, who along with Blanca Misse, are co-hosts of this ongoing podcast series. Solidarity Without Exception is sponsored by the Ukraine Solidarity Network and produced by The Real News Network. Today, we’re joined by Josua Mata to discuss the Philippines, a country caught in the crossfire between the US and China over hegemony in the Asia Pacific.
Josua Mata is the General Secretary of the Filipino Labor Federation, SENTRO, which organizes workers across many sectors in the country. The Philippines has long been a battleground between empires fighting for dominance over the Asia Pacific. The US replaced Spain as the country’s colonial overlord in 1898 through President William McKinley’s Spanish-American War. The US used that war to seize control over Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, projecting its imperial power over the Americas and Asia. Japan drove out the US during World War II, imposing its own brutal dominance over the country, only to be replaced after its defeat by the United States.
Ever since, Washington has used the Philippines as a base to project its hegemony in Asia. Today, the country is caught between the intensifying conflict between the US and China in the region. The Philippines elite has historically been a willing collaborator with the US. Washington backed the country’s dynastic families, including the notorious dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, until it was overthrown in the People’s Power Revolution in 1986. Because the uprising did not have a party of its own to lead a thoroughgoing transformation of society, the liberal elite were able to hijack the revolution.
While they did reestablish democracy and kick out the US military bases, they enacted Washington’s neoliberal reforms that have driven the country into debt and devastated the living standards of the working class and peasantry. They also collaborated with the US in challenging China’s construction of military bases in the South China Sea. China established those bases to project its regional power, control shipping lanes, and secure access to fisheries and drilling rights to the undersea oil and natural gas reserves.
The Philippines challenged Beijing’s encroachment into what it regarded as its sovereign territory, winning a case under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in The Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration. China has not recognized or obeyed that decision, stoking what has become a semi-militarized conflict between China and the Philippines. But amid spiraling poverty, the masses of the country grew disappointed with the liberal elite, opening the door to the return of authoritarian forces.
Far-right populist Rodrigo Duterte won election in 2016. He launched his so-called War on drugs that massacred tens of thousands of people, escalated the government’s brutal repression of the Muslim separatist groups in Mindanao, and tilted the Philippines toward China in the hopes of securing investment as part of Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative. After the end of his term in office, Duterte’s daughter, Sara Duterte, ran as the vice president on the presidential ticket of Marcos son, Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos Jr.
Their joint dynastic ticket one handily, but the pact between the families has fallen apart. Marcos has back to the US and permitted the International Criminal Court to arrest Rodrigo Duterte and place him on trial in The Hague for the mass killing he carried out in his so-called war on drugs. Now, Sara Duterte is mobilizing protests against Marcos, thrusting the country towards political conflict between dynastic elites.
Amidst this conflict, the Marcos government is whipping up nationalism against China’s ongoing encroachment on its seas. The Trump administration is pouring fuel on the fire. It dispatched Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the Philippines and elsewhere in Asia to escalate the US confrontation with China. He promised to back the Philippines, Taiwan, and other countries in the region against Beijing. Thus, the Philippines has become yet another flashpoint between the US and China in their ongoing rivalry.
In this podcast, Josua Mata lays out an alternative approach for working people. He advocates progressive internationalism. He calls for the demilitarization of the region, international solidarity from below against both imperial powers as well as the region’s elite, and the transformation of the contested seas into a commons to be shared by the region, and developed in the interests of the people and our planet. Now on to the discussion with Josua Mata.
The Philippines has been a battleground of empires, various imperial powers, really for centuries. And I really couldn’t help but think about that when President Trump and his inaugural address referred to President McKinley and the Spanish American War, which the US used to take over the Philippines and impose a brutal occupation and semi or direct colonial rule of the country for decades. So what is the history of the Philippines’ experience of colonization by different imperialist powers and how have Filipinos resisted?
Josua Mata:
Well, we normally would start the history of the Philippine labor movement by tracing it all the way to the time that we were struggling against pain. In fact, the working-class hero, Andres Bonifacio, is considered as a working-class hero, primarily because he was the one who founded the revolutionary organization that fought Spain after 300 years of colonial rule.
And to be honest, that revolution have already won almost all the territories in the country except for Manila, particularly the fort, the world city of Manila, and some small parts in the provinces. But primarily, the Katipunan, which was what it was called them, was already able to liberate most of the areas from Spanish colonial rule. However, that was also the time when the American colonial project started, and it started with the coming of Commodore George Dewey and where they staged our mock naval battle in Manila Bay.
And then they took over Fort Santiago, pretending to have a firefight with the Spaniards, just to give them the semblance that they are really fighting for their dignity, when if fact it’s really a mock bottle. And then they started fooling the Filipino forces then by telling them that this is something that they came to the Philippines to help the revolution. Of course, the Philippine Republic was already declared as an independent country then. But then, as soon as George Dewey was able to amass enough resources coming from, enough reinforcements, I mean, coming from the US, then they started to have this really brutal fight with the Filipino revolutionaries.
Eventually, of course, we were overtaken by more superior technology and much more better trained American soldiers who were fresh from their experiences in practically decimating the Native American Indians in North America. So, a lot of the things that they did here in the Philippines were actually efforts to perfect what they have learned in killing the Native American Indians. And in turn, what they learned from the Philippines are exactly the same things that they brought with them to Vietnam.
So, to answer your question quite clearly, how was the Filipino experience when it came to American imperial control? Well, the simplest answer is that we were the first Vietnam. So Japan came in, and then the Americans, of course came back with MacArthur’s promise of, “I shall return.” And he did return, but unfortunately when he did, he was more interested in making sure that the elites that he had befriended when he was still the security advisor of Manuel L. Quezon, that was the first president of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, he was more interested in making sure that the elites are able to regain their power, their prestige, and even their economic wealth, to the point that he was so eager to pardon everyone who practically collaborated with the Japanese.
And that is so unlike the practice that he demonstrated. That’s so unlike what he did when he was the proconsul of Japan, where he literally punished everyone who had ties with the military’s Japanese empire, except of course, the Japanese leaders who have very strong ties with those who amass so much wealth plundering every country in this part of the world. So, the so-called Yamashita gold, this actually historical reality, and it is suspected that MacArthur readily pardoned many of the Japanese war criminals in exchange for some share of that looted gold. So, those are two very different approaches.
So for example, as soon as they returned to the Philippines, one of the first things that the US government did was to help the elite to destroy the armed Huk Rebellion, which is essentially an armed group controlled by the old Communist Party, who were fighting with the peasants who wanted, of course, to have a control over the land that they have been historically cultivating. That’s so contrary to what MacArthur did in Japan, where one of the first thing he imposed was punishing, undergoing agrarian reform in order to dismantle, partly, also to dismantle the Zaibatsus that armed the imperial government of Japan. It’s a contrasting way of dealing with a colonial country, and obviously it has to do with the loyalties of MacArthur to the elites in the Philippines.
Ashley Smith:
So, in the wake of World War II, the Philippines eventually achieves a kind of nominal independence, but with serious control by the United States through military bases, through economic domination.
Josua Mata:
That’s right. And that’s one of the biggest problems, the so-called parity rights that Americans imposed on the Philippines, wherein American capitalists would have the same rights as Filipinos in running their business in the country, or even in exploiting our natural resources. And that was one of the nastiest things that made sure that even if we have nominal independence, the country practically continues to serve as a colony, a new colony of the US, if you like.
Ashley Smith:
So, now we’re in a situation where the United States is still the predominant power in Asia, but it faces a rival for its dominance in the form of China. And the Philippines is caught in the middle of this conflict between the US and China. And China in particular has been trying to assert its control of the South China Sea, and with that, islands fisheries, undersea natural resources, oil, natural gas, and shipping lanes. And the Philippines has been caught in between the US and China. So, what is the character of this conflict between the United States and China, and what impact has it had on the Philippines?
Josua Mata:
Well, clearly this is a fight between two imperial powers, and the Philippines is being caught between them, and that’s not a good place to be. On the one hand, the US, because of its historical ties to the country, and because it has an existing mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, it is dangling this promise that they would come to the aid of the Philippines if it is attacked militarily by a foreign aggressor, in this case, for example, China.
But interestingly, actually, for many presidents in the past, it was so difficult for them to be very categorical about coming to the aid of the Philippines, to the point that you’re not really sure whether the US would actually support the Philippines or not. And with Trump around, many are obviously now having a problem because nobody knows if Trump would actually lift a finger to help Filipinos. And why would he, when he’s so preoccupied with ejecting everyone who is not a white American in his own country? Why would he then spend time, energy and resources and American lives to save Filipinos? So that’s a big question mark.
Now, that is putting the current government in a quandary because it casted its lot with American power, and it started having a much more robust, if you like, stance to US intervention and intrusion, if you like, in our part of the world. Now, that’s problematic for them because now they have been supported by the previous government of the US, the Biden administration, to stand fast, fight back. Now they’re not so sure whether the Americans would really come to their support. And I think that clearly is the problem, because in the first place, why did they decide to side with the US in this conflict and eventually be used as a pawn of one imperial power as against another rising imperial power?
Now, having said that, China on the other hand, is obviously keen on making sure that it can exercise its own manifest destiny in this part of the world. They have been very, very clear, if the US run the Americas throughout history as if it’s its own backyard, they should have the, “Same right to do that,” quote, unquote. Which then puts Filipinos, particularly the fishermen who have traditionally been going out to those parts of the South China Sea, which we now call the West Philippine Sea, in order to do their livelihood. And prior to this conflict, it has been said that Filipinos, Taiwanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, even Indonesians were all free to gather resources peacefully and in coexistence when there was no conflict. But then, now that’s not possible because China was asserting its nine-dash lines, which is now back to 10-dash lines in a very, very aggressive manner.
But in the meantime, rather than call for sobriety and call for making sure that there’s no potential for any flashpoint that could lead to war, unfortunately my country, the government, my government opted to bring in and invite more military arrangements, not only with the US, but also with several other countries like Japan, Australia. Now they’re forging now another agreement with New Zealand. They’re trying to forge an agreement with Germany as well as in India. And what would that mean? It means that this would only lead to more militarization of that part of the world. And with more naval forces loitering in that area, then you have an ever-increasing possibility of having a flashpoint that could lead eventually to war. So, this is a very, very dangerous moment for all of us.
Ashley Smith:
One thing I wanted to get you to talk a little bit more about was the Philippine elite and how it has vacillated the Duterte government, which was the predecessor to the current Marcos Jr. government, tilted seemingly towards China, and then Marcos has swung back to the United States pretty decisively. And what explains this vacillation, and also how is it related to the kind of increasing authoritarian nature of the Filipino government itself and its rule over the country?
Josua Mata:
Well, first of all, to be clear, while we have always called the country a democratic country, we have very, very little experience in actual democracy in this country. Ever since we gained our, “Independence,” quote, unquote, from the American empire, our nominal freedom, if you like, we’ve always been ruled by the elites who are much more subservient to the US empire than to anyone else. And the US empire has always been happy to keep them happy, our elites happy, as long as they allow the US bases to continue untouched in this part of the world, for a longest time. That changed somehow when we finally managed to kick out the US bases, but then the economic ties are still so strong.
So let me put it out first. We don’t have much experience in democracy in this country. That’s the first point. The second point I want to say is that our economy has always been designed to serve the needs of capital, particularly, specifically US capital. And most of our elites have almost always directed their economic transactions to be part of the US global capitalist system. However, with the rise of China, it gave an opportunity for some parts of the elites in the country to have their own entry to global trade. But that’s a very small part of the elite, but that was given much more space when Duterte came to power. But let’s not forget that Duterte came to power primarily because he was supported by China, not just financially, but also politically.
And the reason is, and this is where it gets weird, the reason is because Duterte is the kind of leader that actually fits perfectly well with the kind of politics that we have in this country, which is a highly personalistic kind of politic, where our politics is essentially dominated by personalities, specifically by family dynasties. For example, in this current Congress, more than 85% of all congressmen are actually part of the political dynasties. Our mayors, about 68% of our mayors are part of political dynasties. We have a president who is a Marcos, his sister is a senator, his son is a congressman, and he’s got several uncles and nieces and cousins who are congressmen and mayors and local government officials. That’s the kind of political system that we have.
And Duterte came to the picture when these political dynasties have started asserting themselves once again in our history with a vengeance. It’s like having political dynasties on steroids at that point in time. But you see, Duterte has had a really bad experience with the US, and because he takes things personally, when he was applying for a visa, he apparently was rejected being given a visa, and that he took that personally. And since then, he has become anti-American and packaging his anti-Americanism as part of a nationalist position in the Philippines. Which is funny, because while he keeps claiming that he is nationalist, the first thing he did was actually, after he declared that he’s no longer with the US empire, he then shifted immediately and told Xi Jinping himself, of China, that now he would depend on China. So that’s really incredible.
And I told you, that’s where it gets funny, because here’s the personal preference of a president that is essentially affecting the entire country. But that link goes deeper if you look more closely, because his family is suspected of having very, very deep links with Chinese businessmen, particularly those who are operating in the shadow economy of China, which means the underground economy, specifically the drugs trade. So, there’s that very strong suspicion in this country, that they’ve always been linked to the Chinese triads. And that’s why he had that preference of being with China.
So, you have here the personal interconnection of political clan who is now using, who is now intent on using their power in order to deepen that connection and to favor the economic interest of their family. But then, we only have one term for presidents in this country, and that was specifically designed to prevent a dictator from ruling us, so that means he only had six years to be a dictator. So there’s a natural limit for dictatorship in this country. So when Marcos won by running a campaign where both the Duterte family and the Marcos family are in close unity, and they call themselves UniTeam, as soon as he won, I don’t think he had any intention of moving away from China.
In fact, what we now know is that he had all the intention to keep going, to keep the relationship going with China. The problem is, he felt insulted after China promised exactly the same things that they promised to Duterte, but they never delivered. So, all the billions of investments that Xi Jinping promised to Duterte, none of it actually materialized. Even the official development programs that they promised, of all the many things that they promised, including massive railway infrastructure, none of that materialized. The only thing that materialized are two bridges that were built by China.
So Marcos felt insulted by that, and that’s from what I heard, is that that’s one reason why he immediately shifted to the US. But I also think it’s because the Marcoses have always been closed to the US. They’ve been trained. The children of Marcos Senior were trained in the US. They never graduated, but they can claim that they have actually stepped inside a US university like Princeton, but I’m not so sure what they learned. But the outlook has always been closer to the US as a family more than anything else. But more importantly, he has also to contend with the fact that the military infrastructure in this country, the military personnel, the ideology, as well as the doctrines that they’re using are all developed using the US influence. So, the military has always been pro-US. So that’s also one reason why it’s not that difficult for Marcos to shift to the US away from China.
So that’s how things are, I mean if you look at why the elites would vacillate between the two countries. But now, it’s important to talk about, so what do the people really know about this conflict? Because the way it is being presented to the public is that this is a fight for national sovereignty. This is a fight for our own freedoms. But the elites, and even parts of the left, has been failing to explain the fact that one of the things that pushed the Philippine government to file a case in the UN was primarily because those who have commercial interests, the Filipino oligarchs who have commercial interests to drill the fossil fuels that are supposedly found in those areas, and they failed to drill because China has been preventing them. That is actually what pushed the country to file an arbitration case.
Now, we all know what happened when the Philippine case was heard, UNCLOS made a decision that favors the Philippines, but now their problem is how could they have it enforced when China doesn’t recognize that decision? And that’s why we are now in this situation, because parts of the elites, parts of the oligarchs wanted to get their hands in the fossil fuels buried in that part of the world. And yet, they’re mobilizing people’s sentiment to support what is necessarily a nationalist position to defend our territory, and that we find very, very dangerous.
Ashley Smith:
Now, let’s talk a little bit more about the conflicts that are happening in this clash over the islands of the so-called South China Sea. Are we headed towards a conflict between the Philippines, backed by the US, with China? How close to an actual military conflict? Because it seems like it’s gotten close and then both have backed off, and then it’s gotten close again. And so we’re kind of feeling like we’re at the edge of a military conflagration.
Josua Mata:
To be honest, I don’t think China wants to start a war. It doesn’t help them. It just won’t help them. And I don’t think US wants to have a war as well, not even the Philippines. So nobody wants to have a war, but let’s not forget that’s exactly the attitude of most world powers before World War I. Nobody wanted the World War I, but then it was too late when everyone realized that European powers were actually sleepwalking into a world war, so that’s exactly what we have right now.
I don’t think anyone wants to have a war, but the fact that you’re increasing militarization in that area, where China has built its artificial islands and then put up naval bases and air facilities for their air forces, and then the Philippines started arming itself as if we have all the money to do it when we can’t even feed our people properly. Now, we’re even looking at the possibility of buying submarines.
So I really don’t understand what’s the plan here, because do we intend to arm ourselves to the teeth, thinking that we can actually frighten the Chinese away? Where is the end game if you try to militarize? And now you’re inviting everyone, all your allies to have military arrangements with you. So all this militarization is the problem, and unfortunately there’s no pushback that I can see, nor do I hear, even among the progressive elements of the society. It’s as if everyone just accepted that there’s no other solution to the problem but to try to arm ourselves, and come up with more military arrangements so that we can all push China out of those islands, and that’s very, very dangerous.
Ashley Smith:
Yeah. So, what impact has this increasing military budget, this sleepwalking dynamic into a military conflagration, what impact has that had on the domestic politics of the Philippines? What impact has it had on working people, both at the ideological level, what people are thinking, and also on the economy of the country and the experience of working class life?
Josua Mata:
Well, let’s start with economy, which is the simplest thing to explain because we’re not a rich country, despite the way many of our economic mismanagers would try to brag, that we are almost at the middle income level country. We are still a poor country. We still have many people who don’t even have access to electricity or access to sanitation. So we still need resources in order to develop the economy so that we can provide material needs of our people.
Now, you have to funnel a huge chunk of that money to military expenditures in order to modernize supposedly our military forces. And so what’s a concrete impact? This year, in 2025, the government just signed, the president just signed a budget, a trillion peso budget. Now it’s like 5 trillion pesos, if I’m not mistaken, and there’s zero budget or zero subsidy for field health. Field Health, that’s the health system in this country, zero subsidy so that they can now use it in order to put more money and more resources into militarization.
But more importantly, because this is an election period, then politicians would want to have a capacity to dip their hands into the coffers so that they can actually buy their way back to power. So that’s the economic impact. We have to shift a lot of our resources, much needed resources away from social expenditure into military expenditure.
Ideologically, for me the bigger problem is that there’s a stark increase or there’s a tendency to encourage nationalist thinking, which again is very dangerous, because for me it means that you put a premium on your own country, and therefore, it prepares everyone to fight anyone else outside of the country. And that obviously is the foundation for war. That’s the psychological preparation for war, if you like.
And who would suffer first and foremost in a war? It’s the working class, specifically the women and the children who are all unarmed, the civilians. And whose interests would this kind of war be waged for? Well, obviously, this is what the oligarchs and the powers that be are not explaining. It’s actually in the interest of the oligarchs who wanted to drill fossil fuel in that part of the world.
So that really is what the government is not explaining to the working class. And that is what we in SENTRO are really explaining to workers. And we are trying to tell everyone that militarization is not the only solution. In fact, militarization is the worst solution that you can ever think of, if it is called a solution in the first place. I don’t think we are in a situation where we only need to choose between Beijing or Washington.
These are false choices. These are imperialist powers who wanted to have the upper hand in the global competition for resources, for markets, et cetera. And both of them will not do anything good for the Filipino people. But then, the elites are forcing the Filipino people to take sides, and these binary choices that they’re presenting are all false choices. I think the more appropriate response should come from an international response, particularly from the labor movement, where the first question that all workers should ask is that, what is it that we can do to make sure that there is no war?
Ashley Smith:
One of the things that is clear in the US-China rivalry, in particular, is that every corner of the earth is affecting every other corner of the earth. You can’t separate any region of the world geopolitically. They’re all interrelated. And in particular, the impact of what happens in Europe has an impact of what happens in Asia.
So right now, Trump is trying to foist a pro-Russian imperialist deal on Ukraine, which basically forces Ukraine to give up 20% of its territory, no security guarantees, which means there’s likelihood for more war, but Trump has pushed for that deal. And many in Asia have thought if Ukraine falls, Taiwan’s next, and then there’s lots of other countries that are in the path. Because what it’s affirmed is a kind of annexationist imperialism by these great powers, the United States under Trump, Putin’s Russia, and Xi Jinping’s China.
On the other hand, people have also said that Trump is trying to strike a deal over Ukraine to redeploy forces of the United States to Asia for a sharper confrontation with China. So, like you said earlier, it’s a little bit hard to figure out what Trump is really up to. What’s the plan behind this deal in Europe and what’s its impact going to be on China? So what’s your take on what is going on there in Europe and what’s impact it’s going to have on Asia?
Josua Mata:
Well, to be honest, as I said, many are now wondering could the country actually rely on the US? Because the country, as I said, it’s locked with the US, but now with Trump and his extremely volatile positioning and highly unpredictable way of conducting foreign policy, nobody actually knows what would happen. So that’s what people are wondering about in this part of the world. And I think that’s a natural result of the strategy when you start casting your luck with the US. So, now you’re in that kind of a dilemma, precisely because you did what you did.
Now, having said that, I think Trump’s positioning in Ukraine right now, whether it pans out or not, already sends a very strong message to everyone else, that you cannot rely on the US, you cannot rely on Trump. And that’s also the reason why I think the Philippine government, particularly the president, is starting to figure out how to recalculate things.
And this is where his statement about, remember we have Typhon missiles here that were deployed by the US. Now, I’m not so sure if we have the nuclear weapons here, nuclear warheads here. Hopefully not because that’s unconstitutional. But we both know that the US, it’s not the first time. If ever the US deploys a nuclear weapon in a country with constitutional bans against nuclear weapons, it’s not the first time. They did it with Japan, right? So without the Japanese government actually knowing about it. So I wouldn’t be surprised.
But having said that, now Marcos is saying, “Oh, I’d be happy to return the Typhon missiles, provided that China, you will stop harassing us and you will respect our rights,” et cetera. So to me, that’s a signal that he’s trying to recalibrate his own positioning, knowing fully well that he can no longer rely fully on what the US will do. So that’s one impact, at least that I can see.
But the worrisome thing for me is that it also tells us that weak countries have no say in solving the problems of this world, but even if these problems are the ones that are faced by these weak countries. I cannot imagine how Ukrainian people right now feel. Their future is being decided by two superpowers without them having any voice at all.
And that’s, I think, also the message to everyone in this part of the world. Whether Trump would launch a much more militarist front, whether Trump would be much more militaristic in dealing with China when it comes to the West or the South China Sea or Taiwan or not, the fact is, it is very clear that he will make the decision without thinking of consulting, whether the Taiwanese people or the Filipino people who would be affected by his decision, and that that’s just not good for anyone.
Ashley Smith:
So now, let’s turn to what progressive forces in the Philippines and what the left and the trade union movement can do. You’re one of the leaders of one of the key unions in the Philippines. So, how should the labor movement, oppressed people, workers more broadly, the peasant movement in the Philippines position themselves in this sharpening rivalry, this instability, the unreliability of the United States? What are the traps that should be avoided, and what are the kind of solutions that the working class movement in the Philippines should put forward?
Josua Mata:
That’s one of the questions that we have been trying to grapple with for many, many years now, since this whole thing started. And we’re still developing our ideas, but one thing is very clear for us at the onset. We can never respond to these problems coming from narrow nationalistic thinking. That, for us, is a disaster, which unfortunately is what the elites are peddling in order to gather more support for their position.
And unfortunately, many in the left in the Philippines, many in the progressive movement, including the left in the Philippines, who are also so steep into nationalist thinking, even in their own ideological moorings, is finding it, because of their own steep nationalist thinking, they are finding it very difficult to step away from that. But that’s the biggest trap, if you like, if you get into this nationalist thinking that, “We should wave the flag and defend those islands as our own.” That’s just going to lead to war.
Now, that was very clear for us from the very start. It was also very clear to us that the key issue here are the fossil fuels that are supposedly buried down there, but we’re in the midst of a climate crisis, and this is a real climate crisis. So, are we saying that we’re going to wage a war only to dig up and kill each other, only to dig up those fossil fuels so that we can burn the planet even more? That’s just absurd.
So, people should also sit back and think very clearly, is that the way you want to make use of these resources? Now, obviously we would have to burn some fossil fuels if you want to lift people from poverty, of course. But then, if that’s the case, shouldn’t we be thinking along the lines of, how do we do this in a way where we can minimize the impact on climate? And isn’t it better to think about these resources as something that all of us in this part of the world can use and not just the Filipinos?
I’m a socialist. As a socialist, I’ve always been raised with the thinking that resources are things that we should be sharing with everyone, no matter what your nationality is. So why can’t we think of, so this is second thing that we thought of immediately, is that why can’t we think of these islands of regional commons, where everyone who’s had any claim on it, let’s just all sit down and let’s all agree on how we can make sure that we can make use of these resources in an equitable way?
And then finally, clearly the solution to prevent the intensification or to prevent any potential military conflict, I think the solution is simply to call for a complete demilitarization of that area. And this is where we don’t have any support, even among the progressive groups in this country. Again, it’s because I think of this one-track thinking, that the only solution or the only response that you can present to a bully like China is to present a military solution. That, again, would only lead to disaster.
So these are some of the key things that we’re trying to develop at this point in time. But the problem here is that we still have yet to develop a broader constituency for this thinking, because there are very, very few people who would subscribe to this idea in a situation where nationalist thinking nationalist solutions are so powerful, even among the left in this country.
Ashley Smith:
A couple of final questions I wanted to ask you. First about this moment, because this moment that we’re living through has both these kind of interstate conflicts and inter-imperial conflicts, but it also has been 15 years of explosive struggle from below, pro-democracy movements, national liberation movements, revolutionary uprisings, especially in the Middle East. And a lot of them have not broken through and rebuilt the society in a progressive way, yet.
And one question, because of the Philippines history of intense pro-democracy struggles, explosive pro-democracy struggles, in particular the People’s Power movement that toppled the brutal dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos’ father, Ferdinand Marcos, what lessons do you think the left in the Philippines, and more broadly and globally, should people draw from the experience of these struggles, and in particular in the Philippines, from the People Power movement?
Josua Mata:
It’s a perfect question to end this discussion, and I’d like to remind you that in a few days time, we will actually celebrate or commemorate EDSA Revolution. And then this current government, the Marcos government, is trying its darnedest best to make sure that people actually forget it. So, I think the first thing that our first job is to make sure that people don’t forget. That’s the first job. And as we have often heard, the battle, the fight against authoritarianism, dictatorship is actually a fight against forgetting. It’s a fight to make sure that our memory is not left behind or it’s not forgotten. It’s a fight for memory. It’s a fight for historical memory. And that is the first thing that I think we lost as a progressive movement, as part of the left in the Philippines. And so that’s one lesson.
Many people no longer have the idea that the Marcos dictatorship was a really dark moment in our history. Most people may have heard of that and they have probably read of that in our textbook, but they have no clue on what it actually means. To the point that workers, 61% of voters even voted for Marcos during the last election. Now, that really is frustrating, because most of these voters are working class people, and they have forgotten that when the father declared the martial law, the first ones that he arrested were not the politicians. It was the trade union leaders. The first thing that he tried to destroy was not just the democratic systems that we have, but the labor movement that can potentially be an opposition to his martial law. So, the battle for memory, I think is something that we need to keep fighting for.
The second lesson that we can learn from the People Power, the failed People Power Revolution in this country, is that it is always important to make sure that there is an organized mass, an organized force that can provide the backbone, if you like, for the continuous push for social transformation. What we had in the EDSA Revolution was a political moment, a moment where we had the potential to transform society by ushering a thorough going social reform, a social transformation, if you like. The problem is People Power Revolution was largely led by people who were unorganized.
And the only organized forces that you can imagine that you can see during that period where the military and the politicians, the elite politicians. They were the only ones who had the machinery, the organization to make sure that the gains of the revolution could be pushed towards their agenda. Because the dominant left at that point in time, made a mistake of ignoring People Power Revolution because they have this sectarian belief, this Stalinist belief that the only way to wage a revolution in the Philippines is only through armed struggle, nothing more. So that effectively sidelined the Communist Party, which then led to… That was his historical error that led to them being sidelined.
Maybe I should say it this way. My political upbringing was when I joined the EDSA Revolution. I was still a student then, and I was a working student. And I distinctly remember when there was a call for people to come to EDSA. And at that time, many of us didn’t realize what was happening. Many of us didn’t know until much, much later that EDSA was actually started when a coup d’etat, a military coup d’etat of General Ramos and the secretary of defense minister at that time, minister of defense at that time. And really, they were planning a coup d’etat against Marcos because he knew he was dying and they were afraid that it’s the wife, Imelda, now together with General Ver, who would take over. Nobody knew that at that point in time.
And that plot, that coup plot, which they wanted to launch in 1984, was postponed to 1985 because the Americans managed to convince Marcos to hold snap elections. So they postponed it, but then they wanted to do it again, they were discovered by de Marcoses. And that forced Fidel Ramos and Enrile to come out in public, have a press conference and declare that they’re no longer supporting Marcos. The funny thing is, a funny footnote, actually, is that Imelda and General Ver could have nipped that pressy in the bud had one of the aides actually had the gall to disturb them during a party they were having.
No, it’s true, this is true. I think it’s a wedding party. They were having a wedding party and nobody wanted to disturb them. And then by the time they found out about it, it was too late. Enrile and the General Ramos were already able to start mobilizing support for them for their rebellion, if you like. But people heeded the call of cardinal sin. Who supported Marcos for a long time, but then eventually turned away from him. These are people, who are like me at that point in time, who were not organized. And we were there out in the streets. We didn’t sleep, we didn’t take a bath. You don’t eat much, except when there’s food, except that you can always rely on someone giving you food in the streets when we were manning the barricades.
And then when we heard that finally Marcos has left, everybody was so jubilant, everybody was crying, dancing, laughing, and then the first thing that we thought of, “We should sleep.” So we all went home, we slept, not knowing that the elites were up constructing the new system, so by the time that we woke up welcome back, we woke up to a government that’s once again run by the oligarchs. That is the biggest lesson. You don’t wage a revolution, and then on the verge of your victory, you go to sleep.
Which means it only brings us back to what many of us who are practitioners of professional revolutionaries, if you like, it only brings us back to the point that we always know that nothing beats people being organized, knowing fully well, not just what they are against, but what they really want. Because if we don’t have that organization with very clear vision and strategy on how do you want to transform society, then someone else will step in and hijack what we have started.
Ashley Smith:
Exactly. So this podcast is entitled Solidarity Without Exception. So I wanted to ask you about what you think about the popular struggle in the Philippines and its relation to similar ones in Palestine and Ukraine. Because so often, progressives fall into a trap of selective solidarity, siding with some popular struggles but not other popular struggles because of the camp that those struggles happen in, either a Russian or Chinese camp, or as an American camp, and people don’t have universal solidarity with progressive struggles from below. So, in the context that we’re in, of rising inter-imperial antagonism, increasing national oppression, and with that, growing popular struggle of various kinds from below, how do we build a kind of new internationalism that practices solidarity without exceptions? And what are the openings for that kind of internationalism today?
Josua Mata:
I think the problem in the Philippines, for us in the labor movement, is not the kind of problems that you’re facing that you just mentioned. Our problem is that there’s not much solidarity among Filipino working class and the labor movement, simply because people are so tied up with their day-to-day struggles. But don’t get me wrong, when I started the labor movement three decades ago, one of my first international work was actually supporting Burma. It wasn’t called Myanmar then.
So I was supporting Free Burma Coalition, not as an individual, but as part of the labor movement. I was then working as an education officer of the hotel unions, and I was very, very proud that we were providing spaces for the Burmese, the exiled Burmese leaders. Whenever they come to the Philippines, we actually host them, and so that they can meet quietly in one of the hotels that we organize. So, it’s so easy for us to be very, very involved in that kind of solidarity.
But then, looking back, one wonders so why are many trade union leaders then were very supportive of the struggle for Burma, but then when we asked them to look at the situation of the Muslims in Mindanao who were also waging their own war for their freedom, and who were for the longest time were being treated as if they are our own Palestine, then why is it that it’s so difficult for them to support that?
And that was really a nagging question that led my organization to actually have a program to combat the prejudice that many Catholics, if you like, Christians, if you like, against Muslims. Because in the first place, that fight for freedom of the moral people was never a religious fight. It was a completely secular fight for the freedom of people who have never agreed to be part of the country.
So, we realized that it’s not easy for people to readily provide solidarity to them because they have been fooled into thinking that this is a religious war. So we had to launch a massive, within our organization, we had to launch a massive education campaign to address the prejudice and make sure that at the minimum the labor movement should at least be able to ensure that its membership is a constituency for peace. So, that’s the lesson we draw for that.
But the problem for us now is that it’s so difficult for us to get the people to support, for example, the struggle of the people in Ukraine or even in Palestine. We hold rallies, we hold activities, we hold actions, but it’s this small community of activists and believers and not the general public. That is the kind of challenge that we have right now. And I attribute that to the fact that people are so burdened with day-to-day living, that’s just difficult for them to… The bandwidth for solidarity, if you like, is so limited. And that is a challenge that we have to figure out, “Now, how do we address that?”
So yes, having said that, I completely believe that real solidarity is the solution to the problems that we’re facing, even in the West Philippine Sea or the South China Sea, if you like. The starting point in our efforts to develop working class narrative to the so-called China question has always been to understand the workers of China. We firmly believe that there’s no way we can build solidarity with the Chinese working class, unless people understand that they, like us, are workers who are suffering not just the atrocious behavior of capitalists, but they’re also suffering from dictatorship of the Communist Party of China.
Unless Filipino workers starts thinking along those lines, the elites would always have the power to sway them to wave the flag and wage a war against the Chinese people. And that’s going to be a war that will decimate the working class only to profit the oligarchs.
Ashley Smith:
Thanks to Josua Mata for that revealing discussion of the Philippines, its working class struggle against the country’s dynastic rulers, the necessity of the country’s left opposing the US and China’s militarism in the Asia Pacific, and advocating for regional demilitarization. To hear about upcoming episodes of Solidarity Without Exception, sign up for the Real News Network newsletter. Don’t miss an episode.
This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Ashley Smith.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – U.S. President Donald Trump’s higher tariffs on 60 countries which he deems the “worst offenders,” including 104% duties on China, took effect on Wednesday, sending governments racing to negotiate reductions.
The U.S. and China are locked in a tit-for-tat trade battle that threatens to slow the global economy. The latest round of additional U.S. tariffs on China took effect after Beijing refused to meet Trump’s deadline to withdraw its own retaliatory levies on American goods.
Trump upended the global trade status quo last week, imposing a universal 10% tariff on all imports, effective April 5, and additional tariffs on dozens of countries deemed to have unfair trade practices, effective Wednesday.
Speaking at a Republican Party dinner Tuesday, Donald Trump said the tariffs were “going to be legendary, in a positive way.”
“Many countries … have ripped us off left and right, but now it’s our turn to do the ripping,” he said.
In response to a 34% U.S. tariff on Chinese exports, Beijing last week imposed a matching tariff on U.S. goods, which prompted Trump to retaliate this week with another 50% tariff on China. Earlier in the year, the U.S. had imposed a 20% tariff on China, which it said was in response to fentanyl trafficking.
Trump has described the tariffs as “somewhat explosive” and “amazing,” claiming that import tariffs were already generating “almost US$2 billion a day” for the U.S.
China’s foreign ministry reiterated Wednesday that Beijing will take “resolute and forceful” measures to protect its own interests, after net total tariffs of 104% on Chinese exports to the U.S. took effect.
“If the U.S. genuinely wants to resolve the problem through dialogue and negotiation, it should show an attitude of equality, respect and mutual benefit,” foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said at a regular press briefing.
Echoing the commerce ministry’s comments on Tuesday, Lin said that “if the U.S. insists on fighting a tariff war and a trade war, China will “definitely fight to the end.”
Separately, China’s state-run Xinhua News Agency cited an unnamed official with the Ministry of Commerce as saying that Beijing hoped the US will “immediately remove its unilateral imposition of tariffs, and work with China to strengthen dialogue, manage differences, and promote cooperation.”
“Beijing is willing to address the respective concerns of the sides through dialogue and consultations on an equal footing, and jointly advance the steady, healthy and sustainable development of China-U.S. economic and trade relations,” Xinhua reported.
World leaders have rushed to negotiate, scheduling phone calls and sending delegations to Washington.
Many governments, including Vietnam and Taiwan, have offered concessions in hopes of avoiding the tariffs.
Trump said that 70 had approached the U.S. and that officials would begin talks with South Korea and Japan.
Stocks slumped in Asia on Wednesday, adding to the losses that have mounted in markets around the world since Trump announced the latest round of tariffs last week.
Edited by Stephen Wright.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.
U.S. President Donald Trump threatened Monday to nearly double already hefty tariffs on China in an escalating trade war between the world’s two leading economies that is impacting Chinese manufacturers amid a collapse in global stock prices.
Trump issued his warning on social media after China announced it was imposing a 34 percent tariff on all U.S. imports. That was in retaliation to Trump earlier slapping 20% tariffs as punishment for fentanyl trafficking and another separate 34% tariffs announced last week when the U.S. president took aim at a wide array of global trading partners, roiling international markets.
Despite sinking U.S. and global stock indices, Trump doubled down on Monday, threatening an additional 50% tariffs on China from Wednesday. If implemented that would bring U.S. tariffs on imports from China to reach a combined 104%.
Writing on the Truth Social platform Trump said, “if China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long term trading abuses by tomorrow, April 8th, 2025, the United States will impose ADDITIONAL Tariffs on China of 50%, effective April 9th.”
Radio Free Asia has reached out to the Chinese Embassy in Washington for comment.
Before Trump’s latest announcement, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian, told a news conference: “What the U.S. has done is a typical move of unilateralism, protectionism and economic bullying. It will hurt the U.S. itself as well as others.”
The impact of the unfolding trade war is already being felt in China.
The head of a company that exports electronic products like Bluetooth headsets from Guangzhou, a major trading and manufacturing hub in southeastern China near Hong Kong, told RFA Mandarin that most companies in surrounding Guangdong province that trade with America have stopped accepting U.S. orders due to the new tariff barriers.
“They have stopped and are waiting to see how serious the situation will develop. At present, we know that Guangzhou and Guangdong’s (foreign trading companies) are temporarily not accepting orders,” said the company head, Ms. Gong, who like other Chinese sources in this article would only be identified by a single name.
She added that the U.S. tariff hikes were also impacting companies with offshore operations in countries like Vietnam, which were also slapped with high tariffs by the U.S. She cited the example of a Hong Kong company that had just built a factory in Ho Chi Minh City and was recruiting workers.
“They had just built a factory in Vietnam and were preparing to start business in the past two days. But now the U.S. has increased tariffs to 46% even in Vietnam, so you can’t avoid the high tax rate, and the previous investment is useless now,” Ms. Gong said.
Mr. Zhu, an e-commerce businessman in Jiangsu province, told RFA that high U.S. tariffs could bankrupt a large number of e-commerce companies in that province and Guangdong province. “There is basically no profit and it is impossible to do business,” he said.
On Monday, a commentary in the People’s Daily, a mouthpiece of China’s ruling communist party, said the tariffs would have a negative impact on China’s exports in the short term. However, the article emphasized that China is an economy capable of resisting strong pressure and predicted that “the sky will not fall.”
Meanwhile, Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te said that Taiwan has no plans to retaliate with tariffs of its own against the U.S., and that Taiwan companies’ investment commitments to the U.S. would not change as long as they are in line with Taiwan’s national interests.
Edited by Mat Pennington.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin and RFA Staff.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – The Philippines said the detention of three Filipinos in China for alleged espionage could be retaliation for Manila’s crackdown against alleged Chinese spies.
Chinese authorities arrested the Filipinos, accusing them of working for the Philippine intelligence agency to gather classified information on its military, China’s state-run Xinhua News Agency reported last week, citing state security officials. It said the three had confessed to the crime.
The Philippine National Security Council, or NSC, rejected China’s espionage accusations, describing the detainees as “ordinary citizens with no military training” or intelligence background.
“They are law-abiding citizens with no criminal records and were vetted and screened by the Chinese government prior to their arrival there,” NSC Assistant Director-General Jonathan Malaya said in a statement.
Malaya explained that the three were former recipients of a government scholarship program created under an agreement between the southern Chinese province of Hainan and the western Philippine province of Palawan. He described the incident as possibly retaliatory and politically motivated amid escalating tensions between the two countries.
“The arrests can be seen as a retaliation for the series of legitimate arrests of Chinese agents and accomplices by Philippine law enforcement,” Malaya said.
In recent months, the Philippines has detained several Chinese nationals suspected of espionage, which officials say may have prompted Beijing’s response.
In March, for instance, Philippine authorities arrested six Chinese nationals and one Filipino near Subic Bay for allegedly conducting covert surveillance under the guise of fishing. The group was found collecting sensitive defense data, with intelligence-gathering equipment seized.
Separately, in January, a Chinese software engineer and two Filipinos were arrested for reportedly mapping critical infrastructure, including military bases accessible to U.S. forces. Authorities found advanced navigation and data tools.
Recent actions between Manila and Beijing appear to be tit-for-tat responses as tensions continue to rise over disputed territories in the South China Sea. The region – believed to be rich in natural resources and a vital route for global trade – has long been a source of conflict between the two nations.
In recent years, the Philippines and China have faced off in several high-stakes encounters in contested areas like Scarborough Shoal. These confrontations have intensified in 2024 and 2025.
For example, a Chinese military helicopter recently flew within just three meters (10 feet) of a Philippine patrol plane, an act the Philippines called dangerous and unprofessional.
The Philippines has also joined joint naval drills with the United States and Japan near disputed waters, moves closely watched by Beijing.
Edited by Taejun Kang and Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alan Lu for RFA.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – The Philippines said the detention of three Filipinos in China for alleged espionage could be retaliation for Manila’s crackdown against alleged Chinese spies.
Chinese authorities arrested the Filipinos, accusing them of working for the Philippine intelligence agency to gather classified information on its military, China’s state-run Xinhua News Agency reported last week, citing state security officials. It said the three had confessed to the crime.
The Philippine National Security Council, or NSC, rejected China’s espionage accusations, describing the detainees as “ordinary citizens with no military training” or intelligence background.
“They are law-abiding citizens with no criminal records and were vetted and screened by the Chinese government prior to their arrival there,” NSC Assistant Director-General Jonathan Malaya said in a statement.
Malaya explained that the three were former recipients of a government scholarship program created under an agreement between the southern Chinese province of Hainan and the western Philippine province of Palawan. He described the incident as possibly retaliatory and politically motivated amid escalating tensions between the two countries.
“The arrests can be seen as a retaliation for the series of legitimate arrests of Chinese agents and accomplices by Philippine law enforcement,” Malaya said.
In recent months, the Philippines has detained several Chinese nationals suspected of espionage, which officials say may have prompted Beijing’s response.
In March, for instance, Philippine authorities arrested six Chinese nationals and one Filipino near Subic Bay for allegedly conducting covert surveillance under the guise of fishing. The group was found collecting sensitive defense data, with intelligence-gathering equipment seized.
Separately, in January, a Chinese software engineer and two Filipinos were arrested for reportedly mapping critical infrastructure, including military bases accessible to U.S. forces. Authorities found advanced navigation and data tools.
Recent actions between Manila and Beijing appear to be tit-for-tat responses as tensions continue to rise over disputed territories in the South China Sea. The region – believed to be rich in natural resources and a vital route for global trade – has long been a source of conflict between the two nations.
In recent years, the Philippines and China have faced off in several high-stakes encounters in contested areas like Scarborough Shoal. These confrontations have intensified in 2024 and 2025.
For example, a Chinese military helicopter recently flew within just three meters (10 feet) of a Philippine patrol plane, an act the Philippines called dangerous and unprofessional.
The Philippines has also joined joint naval drills with the United States and Japan near disputed waters, moves closely watched by Beijing.
Edited by Taejun Kang and Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alan Lu for RFA.
On 4 April 2025 Scoop news informed that human rights defender and author Benedict Rogers is now a Senior Director at Fortify Rights. Rogers brings more than three decades of experience advancing human rights throughout Asia, with a particular focus on China, Hong Kong, Myanmar, and North Korea.
“We’re so honored to welcome Benedict to our team of human rights defenders,” said Matthew Smith, Chief Executive Officer at Fortify Rights. “Benedict’s principled leadership, deep expertise, and unwavering commitment to human rights are invaluable assets to our work. He will significantly help our ability to strengthen community-based responses to human rights violations and to combat rising authoritarianism.”
Benedict Rogers co-founded and served as Chief Executive of Hong Kong Watch from 2020 to 2024 and remains a trustee of the organization. He is a member of the advisory group of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, an advisor to the Stop Uyghur Genocide Campaign, and a co-founder of the International Coalition to Stop Crimes Against Humanity in North Korea. Rogers previously worked for nearly 30 years with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, including as East Asia Team Leader and Senior Analyst for East Asia.
He is the author of seven books, including The China Nexus: Thirty Years In and Around the Chinese Communist Party’s Tyranny (2022) and Burma: A Nation at the Crossroads (2012), and he has written numerous articles, editorials, and reports on human rights conditions in Myanmar, China, North Korea, and elsewhere.
In line with Fortify Rights’s mandate to strengthen community-based responses to human rights violations, Rogers will work directly with frontline human rights defenders, civil society organizations, and affected communities, sharing his expertise and supporting their efforts to document abuses, advocate for justice, and build resilient movements for change. His decades of experience conducting trainings, mentoring activists, and leading international advocacy initiatives will help amplify the voices of those most affected by rights violations.
It is a great privilege to join Fortify Rights, which is an organization whose frontline investigations, in-depth research, and brave and reliable advocacy have long inspired me,” said Benedict Rogers. “Fortify Rights has built a remarkable reputation for its courage, integrity, and impact. Joining Fortify Rights feels like a natural next chapter in my journey and an important opportunity to contribute—supporting its work in Myanmar, across Asia, and in Ukraine; providing an advocacy voice in London, Europe, and beyond; expanding efforts into China and North Korea; and strengthening the capacity of brave human rights defenders throughout the region. I look forward to contributing to its mission and expanding its important work across Asia and beyond.”
TAIPEI, Taiwan – China’s objections to new U.S. tariffs stalled a deal to sell off TikTok and keep it operating in the United States, said President Donald Trump on Sunday, emphasizing that he would not reverse tariffs on foreign nations unless the trade deficits that the U.S. faces with various countries, including China, disappeared.
Trump administration officials have been working on an agreement to sell the popular social media app, owned by China-based ByteDance, to an American buyer, as required by a bipartisan law enacted in 2024. But this also requires China’s approval.
“We had a deal pretty much for TikTok – not a deal but pretty close – and then China changed the deal because of tariffs,” Trump told reporters. “If I gave a little cut in tariffs they would have approved that deal in 15 minutes, which shows the power of tariffs.”
Trump on Wednesday signed a far-reaching “reciprocal tariff” policy at the White House, in which he imposed a 34% tariff rate on China. Coupled with the existing 20% tariffs on Chinese imports, the true tariff rate on China is now 54%.
China on Friday announced it was retaliating, with its own 34% tariff on all imports from the U.S. starting April 10. It also announced plans to restrict exports of some rare earth items.
Before Trump announced widespread tariffs, the TikTok deal was reportedly close, advanced by a consortium of U.S. investors, but Trump said China’s objections impeded the pact. The Washington Post reported earlier that Trump’s moves to heighten tariffs on China stalled the talks.
Trump previously said he may consider reducing China tariffs to help facilitate a TikTok deal.
The U.S. Congress had initially mandated that the short-video platform find a new, non-Chinese owner by Jan. 19 for national security reasons, with Trump later extending the deadline until April 5.
During his first term as president, Trump had tried to ban TikTok, but a U.S. federal judge ruled the president did not have the authority to ban the app. Following that judicial rebuke, Congress passed the bill calling for TikTok’s sale, which then-President Joe Biden signed.
Some lawmakers in the U.S. said that China could gain access to TikTok’s personal data for the purpose of influencing political opinion in the country, but the Chinese Foreign Ministry has said the country’s government has never asked companies to “collect or provide data, information or intelligence” held in foreign countries.
TikTok, which has offices in Singapore and Los Angeles, has said it prioritizes user safety.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt listens (L) as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters while in flight on Air Force One, en route to Joint Base Andrews on April 6, 2025.(Mandel Ngan/AFP)
Trump said that he would maintain tariffs on foreign nations unless the trade deficits the U.S. faces with various countries, including China, were eliminated.
“Hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose with China,” Trump told reporters on Sunday
“And unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal,” said Trump, adding that he was “willing to deal with China, but they have to solve their surplus.”
The 10% baseline tariff imposed by Trump on almost all trading partners became effective Saturday morning, with a second wave of tariffs set to take effect Wednesday morning. These new measures, combined with recently implemented tariffs on foreign metals, automobiles, and goods from Canada, Mexico, and China, have increased U.S. import tariffs by nearly ten times their previous levels.
Trump’s trade policies have sparked widespread opposition, drawing criticism even from U.S. allies.
China responded with a series of aggressive countermeasures, while other countries are attempting to negotiate reduced rates.
Vietnam, which faces one of the highest proposed tariff rates at 46%, for instance, is requesting a 45-day postponement and has offered to eliminate its own tariffs.
Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, on Sunday offered zero tariffs as the basis for talks with the U.S., pledging to remove trade barriers and saying Taiwanese companies would increase their U.S. investments.
Asian markets plunged on Monday, with Japan’s benchmark Nikkei falling by more than 8% shortly after opening.
Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index dropped by 9% in early trade, with shares in Chinese tech giants Alibaba and Tencent falling more than 8%.
In South Korea, trading on the Kospi index was halted for five minutes at 9.12 a.m. as stocks plummeted.
Taiwan’s stock exchange fell almost 10% on the Monday open, the first day of trading since the tariffs were announced due to a two-day holiday last week. Falls were driven by the world’s largest chipmaker TSMC and the world’s largest contract manufacturer Foxconn, and marked the largest daily point and percentage loss on record, according to local media.
Trump said he had spoken to leaders from Europe and Asia over the weekend, who hope to convince him to lower tariffs that are as high as 50% and due to take effect this week.
“They are coming to the table. They want to talk but there’s no talk unless they pay us a lot of money on a yearly basis,” he said.
Separately, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said more than 50 nations had started negotiations with Washington since last Wednesday’s announcement.
“He’s created maximum leverage for himself,” Bessent said on NBC News’ Meet the Press, referring to Trump.
Bessent added there was “no reason” to anticipate a recession, citing stronger-than-anticipated U.S. jobs growth last month, before the tariffs were announced.
Neither Trump nor Bessent named the countries or offered details about the talks.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – China’s objections to new U.S. tariffs stalled a deal to sell off TikTok and keep it operating in the United States, said President Donald Trump on Sunday, emphasizing that he would not reverse tariffs on foreign nations unless the trade deficits that the U.S. faces with various countries, including China, disappeared.
Trump administration officials have been working on an agreement to sell the popular social media app, owned by China-based ByteDance, to an American buyer, as required by a bipartisan law enacted in 2024. But this also requires China’s approval.
“We had a deal pretty much for TikTok – not a deal but pretty close – and then China changed the deal because of tariffs,” Trump told reporters. “If I gave a little cut in tariffs they would have approved that deal in 15 minutes, which shows the power of tariffs.”
Trump on Wednesday signed a far-reaching “reciprocal tariff” policy at the White House, in which he imposed a 34% tariff rate on China. Coupled with the existing 20% tariffs on Chinese imports, the true tariff rate on China is now 54%.
China on Friday announced it was retaliating, with its own 34% tariff on all imports from the U.S. starting April 10. It also announced plans to restrict exports of some rare earth items.
Before Trump announced widespread tariffs, the TikTok deal was reportedly close, advanced by a consortium of U.S. investors, but Trump said China’s objections impeded the pact. The Washington Post reported earlier that Trump’s moves to heighten tariffs on China stalled the talks.
Trump previously said he may consider reducing China tariffs to help facilitate a TikTok deal.
The U.S. Congress had initially mandated that the short-video platform find a new, non-Chinese owner by Jan. 19 for national security reasons, with Trump later extending the deadline until April 5.
During his first term as president, Trump had tried to ban TikTok, but a U.S. federal judge ruled the president did not have the authority to ban the app. Following that judicial rebuke, Congress passed the bill calling for TikTok’s sale, which then-President Joe Biden signed.
Some lawmakers in the U.S. said that China could gain access to TikTok’s personal data for the purpose of influencing political opinion in the country, but the Chinese Foreign Ministry has said the country’s government has never asked companies to “collect or provide data, information or intelligence” held in foreign countries.
TikTok, which has offices in Singapore and Los Angeles, has said it prioritizes user safety.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt listens (L) as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters while in flight on Air Force One, en route to Joint Base Andrews on April 6, 2025.(Mandel Ngan/AFP)
Trump said that he would maintain tariffs on foreign nations unless the trade deficits the U.S. faces with various countries, including China, were eliminated.
“Hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose with China,” Trump told reporters on Sunday
“And unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal,” said Trump, adding that he was “willing to deal with China, but they have to solve their surplus.”
The 10% baseline tariff imposed by Trump on almost all trading partners became effective Saturday morning, with a second wave of tariffs set to take effect Wednesday morning. These new measures, combined with recently implemented tariffs on foreign metals, automobiles, and goods from Canada, Mexico, and China, have increased U.S. import tariffs by nearly ten times their previous levels.
Trump’s trade policies have sparked widespread opposition, drawing criticism even from U.S. allies.
China responded with a series of aggressive countermeasures, while other countries are attempting to negotiate reduced rates.
Vietnam, which faces one of the highest proposed tariff rates at 46%, for instance, is requesting a 45-day postponement and has offered to eliminate its own tariffs.
Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, on Sunday offered zero tariffs as the basis for talks with the U.S., pledging to remove trade barriers and saying Taiwanese companies would increase their U.S. investments.
Asian markets plunged on Monday, with Japan’s benchmark Nikkei falling by more than 8% shortly after opening.
Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index dropped by 9% in early trade, with shares in Chinese tech giants Alibaba and Tencent falling more than 8%.
In South Korea, trading on the Kospi index was halted for five minutes at 9.12 a.m. as stocks plummeted.
Taiwan’s stock exchange fell almost 10% on the Monday open, the first day of trading since the tariffs were announced due to a two-day holiday last week. Falls were driven by the world’s largest chipmaker TSMC and the world’s largest contract manufacturer Foxconn, and marked the largest daily point and percentage loss on record, according to local media.
Trump said he had spoken to leaders from Europe and Asia over the weekend, who hope to convince him to lower tariffs that are as high as 50% and due to take effect this week.
“They are coming to the table. They want to talk but there’s no talk unless they pay us a lot of money on a yearly basis,” he said.
Separately, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said more than 50 nations had started negotiations with Washington since last Wednesday’s announcement.
“He’s created maximum leverage for himself,” Bessent said on NBC News’ Meet the Press, referring to Trump.
Bessent added there was “no reason” to anticipate a recession, citing stronger-than-anticipated U.S. jobs growth last month, before the tariffs were announced.
Neither Trump nor Bessent named the countries or offered details about the talks.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.
In his first term as president of the United States, Donald Trump launched a trade war against China. In his second term, he has expanded that trade war to many countries around the world.
In a ceremony outside the White House on April 2, which the US president dubbed “Liberation Day”, Trump announced sweeping new tariffs on dozens of countries, including high taxes on imports from top US trading partners: 54% on China, 46% on Vietnam, 25% on South Korea, 24% on Japan, and 20% on the European Union.
Trump falsely claimed that these tariffs were “reciprocal”, but they were actually unilateral.
We are passionate supporters of all but one of the items on the Hands Off agenda for the April 5 rallies. We couldn’t agree more that the corrupt U.S. government should stop destroying, privatizing, firing, and giving away the post office, schools, land, Social Security, healthcare, environmental protections, and all sorts of essential public services. But we are deeply disturbed to see NATO (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization) on the list of items that we are rallying to protect.
Many people believe that NATO is a peace-loving, defensive alliance, but the opposite is true. During the past 30 years, NATO has fomented a vast arc of violence stretching from Libya to Afghanistan, leaving villages bombed, infrastructure destroyed, and countless dead.
Originally formed in opposition to the Soviet Union, NATO not only failed to disband with the fall of the Soviet Union, but it increased from 16 members in 1991 to 32 members today. Despite promises not to expand eastward, it ploughed ahead against the advice of senior, experienced U.S. diplomats who warned that this would inflame tensions with Russia. While Russia bears full responsibility for invading Ukraine,1in violation of the UN Charter, we cannot deny the disastrous role played by NATO in provoking and then prolonging the war in Ukraine. Two years ago, then NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted that insisting on NATO membership for Ukraine had brought on the Ukraine war. “[Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders,” he said.
The inclusion of NATO in the Hands Off list contradicts the basic Hands Off agenda. Right now, at the bidding of President Trump, NATO is openly and aggressively pressuring its member nations to move money from healthcare, retirement funds, and clean energy to weapons and militarism. Watch a video of the Secretary General of NATO publicly telling the European Union to move money from healthcare and retirement to war. It should be clear which side of the Hands Off agenda NATO is on.
NATO is a destabilizing, law-breaking force for militarization and war provocation. Its existence makes wars, including nuclear wars, more likely. Its hostility toward the few significant militaries in the world that are not among its members fuels arms races and conflicts. The commitment of NATO members to join each others’ wars and NATO’s pursuit of enemies far from the North Atlantic risk global destruction.
We would be happy to expand the Hands Off demands to international issues, such as Hands Off Palestine or Yemen or Greenland or Panama or Canada. But we do object to including a destructive institution like NATO, an institution that systematically and grossly violates the commitment to settle disputes peacefully contained in the UN Charter. If we are truly committed to human needs and the environment, as well as peace, diplomacy, and the UN Charter, then we should eliminate NATO from the Hands Off agenda.
We should go beyond that. We should recognize that while many government agencies are being unfairly cut and need to be defended, one enormous agency that makes up over half of federal discretionary spending is being drastically increased and needs to be cut. That is the Pentagon. The U.S. government spends more on war and war preparation than on all other discretionary items combined. Of 230 other countries, the U.S. spends more on militarism than 227 of them combined. Russia and China spend a combined 21% of what the U.S. and its allies spend on war. Of 230 other countries, the U.S. exports more weaponry than 228 of them combined. The U.S. spends more on war per capita than any other nation, except Israel.
This is not normal or acceptable, or compatible with funding human and environmental needs. NATO has taught people to measure military spending as a percentage of a nation’s economy, as if war were a public service to be maximized. Trump has recently switched from demanding 2% of economies for war to 3%, and then almost immediately to 5%. There’s no logical limit.
Companies that profit from war, like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, will always push for more military spending. So will NATO. While NATO allies consider Russia their most immediate and direct threat, their long-term adversary is China. The constant search for enemies leads to a vicious cycle of arms races. But there is a different path: the pursuit of disarmament negotiations, the rule of law and global cooperation. If we pursued that path, we could move massive amounts of money away from weapons to invest in addressing the non-optional dangers of climate, disease, and poverty.
The rational and moral international piece of the Hands Off agenda should be to eliminate both NATO and the voracious militarism that threaten the future of life on this planet.
1 It is a matter or record:
* that the current violence in Ukraine began with the US abrogation of a promise not to expand NATO one inch further east in 1990
*that the Obama administration engineered a coup to overthrow the elected president Yanukovych of Ukraine in 2014, and this precipitated the overwhelming Crimean vote to secede from Ukraine
* that Donbass oblasts voted also to secede from Ukraine, and that Ukraine began bombing Donbass
* that German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Francois Hollande signed on as guarantors of the Minsk Accords, which they admitted was to give Ukraine time to militarize and join NATO
* that US secretary of state Marco Rubio has admitted that it is a proxy war waged against Ukraine
If this is factually accurate, then to state “Russia bears full responsibility for invading Ukraine” is fallacious. — DV Ed
