[Text/Observer Network Liu Chenghui] The US government's tariff policy goes against the tide of the world, and China's first strong countermeasure has drawn global attention. As Trump further intensified his tariff threats, foreign media increasingly mentioned this sentence - China will not back down.
"It is wrong to think that China will retreat and unilaterally withdraw tariffs." On April 9, the BBC quoted economists as saying. China can endure the pain brought by trade conflicts better than the United States, and it is unclear how the US can find alternative sources for Chinese goods in a short period of time. Some economists frankly stated that China will continue to take reciprocal countermeasures against the US, and Trump may be the first to give in.
Several foreign media outlets noticed that countries threatened by Trump's tariff threats adopted different response strategies, while China took a tougher stance than other countries, vowing that if the US continues to escalate the trade war, China will "see it through to the end."
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian reiterated on April 8 that there are no winners in a trade war or tariff war, and protectionism has no way out. The Chinese people do not provoke trouble, but they are not afraid of it either. Pressure, threats, and blackmail are not the right ways to deal with China.
Oxford Economics' chief economist Louise Loo, who studies China issues, told the BBC: "At this stage, China's retaliation and counter-retaliation are almost certain."
She said that China's retaliatory measures are likely to be reciprocal and also "leave room for trade negotiations."
In an article published on April 9, "Yuyuan Tan Tian" noted that there were two key points in China's response to the US threat to upgrade tariffs on China. First, pay attention to a word, "see it through to the end." Second, about dialogue. The door for negotiation remains open, but not in this way.
In the triangular relationship among Trump, the Federal Reserve, and China, "we believe that Trump is very likely to blink first," Louise Loo said. In game theory, "blinking first" is often used to describe the behavior of one party in an adversarial or competitive game who cannot withstand the pressure and compromises or retreats first.
In Louise Loo's view, the complete interruption of Sino-US trade is the worst-case scenario. Once it happens, even if China cannot fully offset its impact within this year, in the long run, China can continue to find other emerging markets to conduct trade and mitigate the negative impact. However, such a "worst-case scenario" is unlikely to happen at this stage.
On April 8, Washington D.C., Trump attended an event hosted by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) at the National Building Museum. Visual China
Roland Rajah, chief economist of the Lowy Institute, said that unlike the Sino-US trade conflicts during Trump's first term as president, it is difficult to predict how things will develop.
He added that China has "extensive retaliatory means," but it is unclear how much restraint China will maintain and whether it will use all its weapons.
"I think the US is exaggerating," said Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore. Trump believes that the US market is profitable, and China or any other country will eventually yield, but she expressed doubt about this.
"How will this end? No one knows," she said, "I am really worried about the speed and escalation of the situation. There will be more challenges ahead, and the risks are very high."
"China does not yield to Donald Trump; they are still retaliating," wrote MSNBC on April 9 in a commentary titled "China Does Not Yield to Trump." The 34% tariff increase on imported American goods is clearly "an eye for an eye," but what draws more attention is the speed of China's retaliatory actions - but when people thought the Chinese government would retaliate over the weekend, the statement was issued on the first day of the Qingming Festival holiday.
The article said that even if Trump tries to pressure China into negotiations through tariffs, China will not yield to humiliation and threats. "Angry China is determined to show its resolve in front of America's tough tactics."
MSNBC believed that Trump's efforts not only fail to make China yield but also push China to carry out fiscal and financial reforms, promote domestic consumption, and reconfigure its own strength.
Besides, even facing geopolitical risks, American companies will not easily exit China and will continue to do business there because the US cannot produce all the intermediate products it needs, and the Chinese market is crucial to the competitiveness of American companies.
As one company representative put it, "Our greatest fear is being unexpectedly defeated by competitors from China elsewhere in the world."
Regarding the "hard confrontation" between US and Chinese tariffs, the US magazine Foreign Policy described it on April 8 as follows: China was originally prepared to engage in a tense standoff with the US on trade issues, like two gunfighters staring each other down at noon, but who knew that Trump did not fire but instead started throwing bombs, affecting allies and bystanders alike.
The article pointed out that China's response to Trump's "reciprocal tariff" statement on April 2 was very strong. Not only did China impose a 34% retaliatory tariff on the US, but it also launched a series of investigations on US companies, listed some American companies on the "Unreliable Entity List," and implemented additional export controls on rare earths.
"Trump seems unwilling to accept any conditions other than yielding," the article wrote. "However, China's supply chain dependence on the US is lower than the US supply chain dependence on China. China can almost find substitutes for all imported US goods, especially if more suppliers seek to diversify their markets to cope with unreliable Washington."
A week has passed since Trump signed the "reciprocal tariff" executive order, and the market unease caused by it continues to fester.
After the US stock market suffered consecutive "bloodbaths" on April 3 and 4, it experienced another bout of intense fluctuations this week.
By the close on the 8th, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 0.84%, dropping 2300 points from its high, closing at 37645.59 points. The Nasdaq Composite Index fell 2.15%, closing at 15267.91 points. The S&P 500 Index fell 1.57%, closing at 4982.77 points, falling below 5000 points for the first time since last April.
Compared to its recent high on February 19, the S&P 500 index has fallen 18.9%, just one step away from entering a "bear market" according to Wall Street's definition, which considers a 20% drop from the previous closing high as a "bear market."
S&P 500 index value changes from November 2024 to April 2025, Reuters chart
Analysts believe that the stock market crash puts enormous pressure on Trump's tariff policies, but this decline alone may not be enough to force Trump to change his stance.
"As tariff policies move from headlines to reality, a large amount of hard data will inevitably accumulate and weaken support - especially if the US enters a recession as widely predicted now," wrote Henrietta Trez, co-founder of Veda Partners, in a report to clients. "Several consecutive days of 3% market declines indeed attract congressional attention, but what truly drives action is the duration and intensity of the decline."
According to reports on April 8 by the Financial Times and others, as growing concerns arise about Trump's tariff policies leading to market collapse, the number of billionaires and financiers openly criticizing and opposing President Trump's decision is increasing, including some of Trump's political "donors."
Billionaire and well-known hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, who "defected" to support Trump in the 2024 US presidential election, warned in a lengthy post on Sunday that continuing to impose new tariffs is tantamount to launching an "economic nuclear war."
"If the US launches an economic nuclear war on every country in the world on April 9, commercial investment will stall, consumers will tighten their wallets, and the US will severely damage its reputation among other countries, which will take years or even decades to restore," he questioned on the X platform. "In an economic nuclear war, which CEO or board is willing to make large-scale, long-term economic commitments to the US?"
This article is an exclusive contribution from Observer Network and cannot be reprinted without permission.
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7491223089603297842/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author, and you are welcome to express your opinions by clicking the "thumbs up/thumbs down" buttons below.