Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

International efforts, such as the Paris Agreement, aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But experts say countries aren’t doing enough to limit dangerous global warming. Summary Countries have debated how to combat climate change since the early 1990s. These negotiations have produced several important accords, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Governments generally agree on the science behind climate change but have diverged on who is most responsible, how to track emissions-reduction goals, and whether to compensate harder-hit countries. The findings of the first global stocktake, discussed at the 2023 UN Climate Summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), concluded that governments need to do more to prevent the global average temperature from rising by 1.5°C. Introduction Over the last several decades, governments have collectively pledged to slow global warming. But despite intensified diplomacy, the world is already facing the consequences of climate change, and they are expected to get worse. Through the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere keeps rising, heating the Earth at an alarming rate. Scientists warn that if this warming continues unabated, it could bring environmental catastrophe to much of the world, including staggering sea-level rise, devastating wildfires, record-breaking droughts and floods, and widespread species loss. Since negotiating the Paris accord in 2015, many of the 195 countries that are party to the agreement have strengthened their climate commitments—to include pledges on curbing emissions and supporting countries in adapting to the effects of extreme weather—during the annual UN climate conferences known as the Conference of the Parties (COP). While experts note that clear progress has been made towards the clean energy transition, cutting current emissions has proven challenging for the world’s top emitters. The United States, for instance, could be poised to ramp up fossil fuel production linked to global warming under the Donald Trump administration, which has previously minimized the effects of climate change and has withdrawn twice from the Paris Agreement. What are the most important international agreements on climate change? Montreal Protocol, 1987. Though not intended to tackle climate change, the Montreal Protocol [PDF] was a historic environmental accord that became a model for future diplomacy on the issue. Every country in the world eventually ratified the treaty, which required them to stop producing substances that damage the ozone layer, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The protocol has succeeded in eliminating nearly 99 percent of these ozone-depleting substances. In 2016, parties agreed via the Kigali Amendment to also reduce their production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), powerful greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992. Ratified by 197 countries, including the United States, the landmark accord [PDF] was the first global treaty to explicitly address climate change. It established an annual forum, known as the Conference of the Parties, or COP, for international discussions aimed at stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These meetings produced the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Kyoto Protocol, 2005. The Kyoto Protocol [PDF], adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, was the first legally binding climate treaty. It required developed countries to reduce emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels, and established a system to monitor countries’ progress. But the treaty did not compel developing countries, including major carbon emitters China and India, to take action. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but never ratified it and later withdrew its signature.  Paris Agreement, 2015. The most significant global climate agreement to date, the Paris Agreement requires all countries to set emissions-reduction pledges. Governments set targets, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), with the goals of preventing the global average temperature from rising 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to keep it below 1.5°C (2.7°F). It also aims to reach global net-zero emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gases emitted equals the amount removed from the atmosphere, in the second half of the century. (This is also known as being climate neutral or carbon neutral.) The United States, the world’s second-largest emitter, is the only country to withdraw from the agreement, a move President Donald Trump made during his first administration in 2017. While former President Joe Biden reentered the agreement during his first day in office, Trump again withdrew the United States on the first day of his second administration in 2025. Three other countries have not formally approved the agreement: Iran, Libya, and Yemen. Is there a consensus on the science of climate change? Yes, there is a broad consensus among the scientific community, though some deny that climate change is a problem, including politicians in the United States. When negotiating teams meet for international climate talks, there is “less skepticism about the science and more disagreement about how to set priorities,” says David Victor, an international relations professor at the University of California, San Diego. The basic science is that:• the Earth’s average temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate; • human activities, namely the use of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are the primary drivers of this rapid warming and climate change; and,• continued warming is expected to have harmful effects worldwide. Data taken from ice cores shows that the Earth’s average temperature is rising more now than it has in eight hundred thousand years. Scientists say this is largely a result of human activities over the last 150 years, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. These activities have dramatically increased the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, causing the planet to warm. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body established in 1988, regularly assesses the latest climate science and produces consensus-based reports for countries. Why are countries aiming to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C? Scientists have warned for years of catastrophic environmental consequences if global temperature continues to rise at the current pace. The Earth’s average temperature has already increased approximately 1.1°C above preindustrial levels, according to a 2023 assessment by the IPCC. The report, drafted by more than two hundred scientists from over sixty countries, predicts that the world will reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming within the next two decades even if nations drastically cut emissions immediately. (Several estimates report that global warming already surpassed that threshold in 2024.) An earlier, more comprehensive IPCC report summarized the severe effects expected to occur when the global temperature warms by 1.5°C: Heat waves. Many regions will suffer more hot days, with about 14 percent of people worldwide being exposed to periods of severe heat at least once every five years. Droughts and floods. Regions will be more susceptible to droughts and floods, making farming more difficult, lowering crop yields, and causing food shortages.  Rising seas. Tens of millions of people live in coastal regions that will be submerged in the coming decades. Small island nations are particularly vulnerable. Ocean changes. Up to 90 percent of coral reefs will be wiped out, and oceans will become more acidic. The world’s fisheries will become far less productive. Arctic ice thaws. At least once a century, the Arctic will experience a summer with no sea ice, which has not happened in at least two thousand years. Forty percent of the Arctic’s permafrost will thaw by the end of the century.  Species loss. More insects, plants, and vertebrates will be at risk of extinction.  The consequences will be far worse if the 2°C threshold is reached, scientists say. “We’re headed toward disaster if we can’t get our warming in check and we need to do this very quickly,” says Alice C. Hill, CFR senior fellow for energy and the environment. Which countries are responsible for climate change? The answer depends on who you ask and how you measure emissions. Ever since the first climate talks in the 1990s, officials have debated which countries—developed or developing—are more to blame for climate change and should therefore curb their emissions. Developing countries argue that developed countries have emitted more greenhouse gases over time. They say these developed countries should now carry more of the burden because they were able to grow their economies without restraint. Indeed, the United States has emitted the most of all time, followed by the European Union (EU).   However, China and India are now among the world’s top annual emitters, along with the United States. Developed countries have argued that those countries must do more now to address climate change.   In the context of this debate, major climate agreements have evolved in how they pursue emissions reductions. The Kyoto Protocol required only developed countries to reduce emissions, while the Paris Agreement recognized that climate change is a shared problem and called on all countries to set emissions targets. What progress have countries made since the Paris Agreement? Every five years, countries are supposed to assess their progress toward implementing the agreement through a process known as the global stocktake. The first of these reports, released in September 2023, warned governments that “the world is not on track to meet the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.” That said, countries have made some breakthroughs during the annual UN climate summits, such as the landmark commitment to establish the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The fund aims to address the inequality of climate change by providing financial assistance to poorer countries, which are often least responsible for global emissions yet most vulnerable to climate disasters. At COP28, countries decided that the fund will be initially housed at the World Bank, with several wealthy countries, such as the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and EU members, initially pledging around $430 million combined. At COP29, developed countries committed to triple their finance commitments to developing countries, totalling $300 billion annually by 2035. Recently, there have been global efforts to cut methane emissions, which account for more than half of human-made warming today because of their higher potency and heat trapping ability within the first few decades of release. The United States and EU introduced a Global Methane Pledge at COP26, which aims to slash 30 percent of methane emissions levels between 2020 and 2030. At COP28, oil companies announced they would cut their methane emissions from wells and drilling by more than 80 percent by the end of the decade. However, pledges to phase out fossil fuels were not renewed the following year at COP29. Are the commitments made under the Paris Agreement enough? Most experts say that countries’ pledges are not ambitious enough and will not be enacted quickly enough to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C. The policies of Paris signatories as of late 2022 could result in a 2.7°C (4.9°F) rise by 2100, according to the Climate Action Tracker compiled by Germany-based nonprofits Climate Analytics and the NewClimate Institute. “The Paris Agreement is not enough. Even at the time of negotiation, it was recognized as not being enough,” says CFR’s Hill. “It was only a first step, and the expectation was that as time went on, countries would return with greater ambition to cut their emissions.” Since 2015, dozens of countries—including the top emitters—have submitted stronger pledges. For example, President Biden announced in 2021 that the United States will aim to cut emissions by 50 to 52 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030, doubling former President Barack Obama’s commitment. The following year, the U.S. Congress approved legislation that could get the country close to reaching that goal. Meanwhile, the EU pledged to reduce emissions by at least 55 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030, and China said it aims to reach peak emissions before 2030. But the world’s average temperature will still rise more than 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100 even if countries fully implement their pledges for 2030 and beyond. If the more than one hundred countries that have set or are considering net-zero targets follow through, warming could be limited to 1.8˚C (3.2°F), according to the Climate Action Tracker.   What are the alternatives to the Paris Agreement? Some experts foresee the most meaningful climate action happening in other forums. Yale University economist William Nordhaus says that purely voluntary international accords like the Paris Agreement promote free-riding and are destined to fail. The best way to cut global emissions, he says, would be to have governments negotiate a universal carbon price rather than focus on country emissions limits. Others propose new agreements [PDF] that apply to specific emissions or sectors to complement the Paris Agreement.  In recent years, climate diplomacy has occurred increasingly through minilateral groupings. The Group of Twenty (G20), representing countries that are responsible for 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas pollution, has pledged to stop financing new coal-fired power plants abroad and agreed to triple renewable energy capacity by the end of this decade. However, G20 governments have thus far failed to set a deadline to phase out fossil fuels. In 2022, countries in the International Civil Aviation Organization set a goal of achieving net-zero emissions for commercial aviation by 2050. Meanwhile, cities around the world have made their own pledges. In the United States, more than six hundred local governments [PDF] have detailed climate action plans that include emissions-reduction targets. Industry is also a large source of carbon pollution, and many firms have said they will try to reduce their emissions or become carbon neutral or carbon negative, meaning they would remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. The Science Based Targets initiative, a UK-based company considered the “gold standard” in validating corporate net-zero plans, says it has certified the plans of  over three thousand firms, and aims to more than triple this total by 2025. Still, analysts say that many challenges remain, including questions over the accounting methods and a lack of transparency in supply chains. Recommended Resources This timeline tracks UN climate talks since 1992. CFR Education’s latest resources explain everything to know about climate change.  The Climate Action Tracker assesses countries’ updated NDCs under the Paris Agreement. CFR Senior Fellow Varun Sivaram discusses how the 2025 U.S. wildfires demonstrate the need to rethink climate diplomacy and adopt a pragmatic response to falling short of global climate goals. In this series on climate change and instability by the Center for Preventive Action, CFR Senior Fellow Michelle Gavin looks at the consequences for the Horn of Africa and the National Defense University’s Paul J. Angelo for Central America. This backgrounder by Clara Fong unpacks the global push for climate financing.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском India races to match China’s growing influence in South Asia In recent decades, South Asian nations have emerged as pivotal destination points for major infrastructure investments from both India and China. Stretching from the shores of the Indian Ocean to the Himalayan foothills, the growing footprint of these two regional powers is reshaping the landscape of development. While many projects share similar outcomes, they have also raised concerns about their impact on local economies and everyday life. China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Initiation and controversy   Credits: Proposed Belt and Road Initiative. Illustrated in 2017 by Lommes, via Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 4.0. First initiated in 2013, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is considered one of the most ambitious international infrastructure endeavours in recent history. Spanning more than 150 nations and involving over USD 1 trillion in investments, the BRI has supported the development of ports, railroads, highways, and energy networks throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America. As per the Green Finance and Development Center, there has been a revival in BRI financing after the COVID-19 pandemic, largely driven by Chinese policy banks and state-owned companies. In Sri Lanka, however, the BRI has become a cautionary example. The Hambantota Port, built with loans from the Export-Import Bank of China, failed to generate the expected revenue. In 2017, the Sri Lankan government granted a 99-year lease to China Merchants Port Holdings, raising concerns over sovereignty and economic vulnerability. Critics, particularly in Western media, have pointed to this as evidence of what they describe as China’s “debt-trap diplomacy” — a claim that Chinese officials strongly deny. However, some scholars argue that the term “debt-trap diplomacy” is misleading. Deborah Brautigam of Johns Hopkins University argues in her 2020 article “A critical look at Chinese ‘debt-trap diplomacy’: the rise of a meme” argued that debt crises in countries such as Sri Lanka are mainly caused by domestic mismanagement, aggressive infrastructure spending, and global economic pressures — rather than coercion by China. In Bangladesh, foreign initiatives have significantly influenced the country's infrastructure and energy landscape. A key example is the Payra Power Plant, a USD 2.48 billion coal-fired project constructed under the BRI framework with Chinese funding and technical expertise. The plant, operational since 2020, has helped alleviate chronic energy shortages but has been criticized for its environmental footprint and reliance on imported coal. Moreover, concerns have emerged regarding its long-term sustainability and alignment with Bangladesh’s climate commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement. Another flagship BRI project is the Dhaka Elevated Expressway, a 20-kilometer-long project linking the capital’s airport to major industrial areas. Executed by the China Major Bridge Engineering Company, the project was structured as a public-private partnership under a 25-year build-own-transfer model. While it is expected to ease traffic congestion and boost logistics efficiency, experts have flagged the lack of competitive bidding and limited transparency in financial arrangements. In March 2025, during an official visit to China, Bangladesh's Chief Adviser, Muhammad Yunus, successfully secured a pledge of a total of USD 2.1 billion in investments, loans, and grants for Bangladesh, marking a significant step in strengthening bilateral cooperation between the two countries. In the Maldives, Chinese loans under the BRI supported major housing projects and the Sinamalé Bridge, an important link between Malé and Hulhulé Island. In 2018, reports indicated that the Maldives’ total public debt rose to 72 percent of its GDP, reaching around USD 3.8 billion. By early 2024, worries have resurfaced as the Maldives’ total debt rose to approximately USD 8.2 billion — 116.5 percent of its GDP in the first quarter, up from 110.4 percent during the same period the previous year. About half of that is external debt, with a big portion owed to China, which has extended loans totalling USD 1.37 billion to the country. The growing debt burden has sparked concerns regarding autonomy and repayment conditions. However, Maldives President Mohamed Muizzu has described China as “one of the Maldives’ closest allies and development partners.” He has pledged to deepen cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), with a focus on infrastructure development. In January 2025, the China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC) signed a deal with the Maldivian Ministry of Construction, Housing, and Infrastructure to build major infrastructure on Gulhifalhu Island in the Malé Atoll, further expanding China’s footprint in the country. India’s rise: Neighbourhood First and Act East India, long seen as a regional power, is increasingly using infrastructure as a tool of foreign diplomacy. However, with the exception of Bhutan, most of India’s South Asian neighbors have joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), leading to a significant rise in Chinese investments across the region. Since 2018, China has invested more than USD 150 billion in the economies of Bangladesh, the Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. China’s expanding influence has raised concerns in India, and in response, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has strengthened India’s regional outreach through the “Neighbourhood First” policy, aimed at deepening ties between South Asian countries. Complementing this is the “Act East” policy, which focuses on building closer partnerships with Southeast Asia and the broader Asia-Pacific region. Unlike China’s debt-driven mega-projects, India’s approach emphasizes three core principles: transparency, respect for sovereignty, and people-centric development. India’s infrastructure engagement in Sri Lanka has largely focused on strategic support, including over USD 4 billion in credit lines during the country’s 2022 economic crisis. This assistance covered essential imports such as fuel and food and played a key role in stabilizing the Sri Lankan economy. India has also contributed to energy cooperation, particularly through projects like the Trincomalee Oil Tank Farm and renewable energy initiatives in the north. However, these efforts have drawn criticism regarding transparency and local impact. For instance, a USD 442 million wind energy project awarded to India’s Adani Group without a competitive bidding process sparked concerns over environmental oversight and national sovereignty. India’s flagship initiative in the Maldives — the USD 500 million Greater Malé Connectivity Project (GMCP) — faced backlash from the “India Out” movement, led by opposition figures in 2022 who claimed the project threatened national sovereignty and enabled a foreign military presence. The protest underscored the fragile balance between development and concerns over external influence. In an effort to rebuild trust, India launched a USD 110 million sanitation project in 2024, covering 28 Maldivian islands. Construction on the GMCP resumed in February 2025 following diplomatic negotiations. As a goodwill gesture, India introduced visa-free travel for Maldivian citizens in March 2025 to help repair bilateral ties. The Maitree Super Thermal Power Project, a joint venture between India and Bangladesh with equal stakes, currently provides 1,320 MW to Bangladesh’s grid through its coal-fired facility in Rampal, Khulna, financed under India’s special financing program. A number of projects, such as the Bangladesh-India Friendship Pipeline, have been indefinitely suspended due to the August 2024 change of government in Bangladesh. On April 4, 2025, Modi met with Muhammad Yunus on the sidelines of the BIMSTEC Summit in Bangkok, holding talks for the first time since 2024. The meeting opened up opportunities for reconciliation and restarting the paused projects. The road ahead Despite a history of tension, China and India are key players in South Asia, each with different strategies. China focuses on large-scale BRI projects, while India prioritizes connectivity and capacity building. However, there are areas where India’s and China’s interests overlap, which creates room for cooperation. With South Asia’s infrastructure needs reaching into the trillions, both countries’ initiatives are complementing each other, expanding their influence through trade and investment. While India gains from improved connectivity and trade with its neighbors, it will need to strengthen its economic diplomacy to keep pace with China’s growing influence in today’s geopolitical landscape.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Nearly a fifth of the energy generated in the region never makes it to usage. Experts call for more energy planning, investment and control Latin America has made significant steps towards its energy transition. The region already generates 60% of its electricity from renewable sources, a figure that the International Energy Agency expects to continue to rise. However, there is one factor in this journey that receives limited attention – and is affecting the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy. Energy losses – the difference between the amount of electricity generated and the amount that is ultimately accounted for via consumer bills – averaged 17% per year in Latin America over the past three decades, according to a report by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). It says this is three times higher than in developed countries. That represents between five and six million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year, equivalent to the emissions of 1.3 million cars. Specialists have termed these as “compensatory emissions”, as more electricity generation is required to compensate for the losses. Countries with a higher share of fossil fuel generation, such as Argentina, Mexico and Colombia, are mainly responsible for these additional emissions. Energy losses affect all countries in the region and occur for both technical and non-technical reasons. The former refers to problems in transmission and distribution lines, mostly due to a lack of investment and infrastructure maintenance; the latter corresponds to energy delivered and not paid for by users, such as theft and energy fraud. “Energy losses have the potential to affect the fulfilment of the climate targets,” Ana Lía Rojas, executive director of the Chilean Association of Renewable Energy and Storage (Acera), tells Dialogue Earth. “Every unit of energy that is lost means more generation is needed to meet demand.” Energy losses Most electricity is produced in power plants and sent over long distances through high-voltage transmission lines. It then reaches consumers through the distribution network – the poles and wires that connect homes and businesses. This infrastructure can suffer from various problems that result in technical energy losses. For example, losses due to the resistance of the conductive material through which the energy flows, ageing infrastructure and malfunctioning transformers. While these are inherent problems in electricity transmission, experts agree that there is a general lack of investment in transmission and distribution networks across Latin America. “Decision-makers prioritise having energy, and the grid is left as a second priority. You have to invest in parallel in the grid and in generation – it’s about seeing the system as a whole,” Ramón Méndez, Uruguay’s former energy director, tells Dialogue Earth. “A deficient infrastructure can become a major economic and technical problem.” Between 2015 and 2021, investment in distribution and transmission infrastructure in the region fell by about 40%. Not only can this lead to energy losses, but it also leaves grids more exposed to extreme weather events and can lead to service problems, which particularly affect vulnerable populations. In Latin America, most electricity losses occur in the distribution system. This is mostly due to non-technical factors, such as energy theft, says Santiago López Cariboni. A professor of economics at the University of the Republic of Uruguay, he co-authored the IDB’s energy losses report. “It is energy that is produced and transported, but not consumed legally. People break or tamper with meters or run a cable straight from the grid to their homes or businesses,” López Cariboni tells Dialogue Earth. “Even if governments could cut off the power to all those homes, they wouldn’t do it – it would create a huge social and economic problem.” A user that steals energy consumes up to three times more than one that does not, estimates López Cariboni. By not paying a tariff, people have no incentive to consume less or to have low-consumption technology. According to the IDB report, irregular connections are related to the disorderly growth of Latin American cities in recent decades. The dumping of energy Although it does not generate emissions, renewable energy can also generate a problem of energy losses. This has happened recently in Chile. The share of solar and wind energy reached a record 40% of the country’s energy generation in 2024. However, as their weight in the mix increases, so do energy losses. This phenomenon, also known as curtailment, occurs because the development of renewable projects is progressing much faster than available transmission and storage capacity. In 2024, 5,900 gigawatt hours (GWh) of power were wasted in Chile, 148% more than in 2023. The figure represents 20% of the solar and wind energy generated by the country, estimates Lía Rojas. Jorge Leal Saldivia, a partner at the Chilean renewable energy company LAS Energy, says this wasting corresponds mainly to solar energy generated in the north of the country. “The transmission infrastructure is not in place to be able to bring that energy to central and southern Chile. The lines become congested, and the energy has to be dumped,” he tells Dialogue Earth. Rodrigo Palma, a researcher at the Energy Centre of the University of Chile, tells Dialogue Earth there have been delays in energy planning: “The entry into operation of solar and wind has not stopped, and the rate of entry is greater than the rate of capacity-building by the state. This may slow down the penetration of renewables into our energy system.” By 2040, all coal-fired power plants will have to cease operating in Chile. This is expected to be mostly compensated for by renewable energy. In April, the government announced a tender for eight new projects to upgrade the grid, adding to 12 projects launched last year. One of the biggest initiatives, the Kimal-Lo Aguirre transmission line, is now under review after complaints from social and environmental groups. Possible solutions Half of the 26 countries analysed in the IDB report have experienced greater energy losses in recent years, highlighting the urgent need for solutions. Honduras, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic lose more than 30% of their energy, followed by more than 20% in Jamaica, Paraguay and Guyana. The IDB also highlights how grids face increasing vulnerability and impacts due to climate change. Specialists consulted by Dialogue Earth highlight the need for comprehensive planning by governments to address losses. For technical losses, the incorporation of technology can help, such as smart meters and storage. For the non-technical ones, a social policy perspective needs to be added, says López Cariboni. “Societies justify energy theft by necessity; they see energy as a right,” he explains. “For those who can pay, you can work with sanctions and regulations. But for those who can’t, the state should formalise those losses and take it as part of their budget. It’s more public expenditure, but it’s an expenditure that is already being made.” Martin Dapelo, a member of the board of directors for the Argentine Chamber of Renewable Energies (Cader), questions the lack of progress in the region on smart metering. “It is the first big step. We are missing out on the possibility of measuring in real time,” he tells Dialogue Earth. In storage, Chile has so far been the only country in the region to take the first steps. Distributed generation – energy generated by consumers themselves in small-scale, localised systems – is also on the region’s solutions list. These arrangements place solar or wind farms at the site of consumption, for example among housing or industry. This removes the need for energy transportation, avoiding grid overload. “We have gotten used to the idea that planning has to be indicative, and that it is the market that decides which direction to take with the energy sector. The case of Chile, with an oversupply of solar, but without transmission grids, shows that this is not the case,” say Méndez. “The optimal system is one that looks at the whole and determines the best combination.” This article was originally published by Dialogue Earth under the Creative Commons BY NC ND licence

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Last week, the Trump administration signed a deal with Ukraine that gives it privileged access to Ukraine’s natural resources. Some news outlets described the deal as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “caving” to US President Donald Trump’s demands. But we see the agreement as the result of clever bargaining on the part of Ukraine’s war-time president. So, what does the deal mean for Ukraine? And will this help strengthen America’s mineral supply chains? Ukraine’s natural resource wealth Ukraine is home to 5% of the world’s critical mineral wealth, including 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as vital for defence, construction and high-tech manufacturing. However, there’s a big difference between resources (what’s in the ground) and reserves (what can be commercially exploited). Ukraine’s proven mineral reserves are limited. Further, Ukraine has an estimated mineral wealth of around US$14.8 trillion (A$23 trillion), but more than half of this is in territories currently occupied by Russia. What does the new deal mean for Ukraine? American support for overseas conflict is usually about securing US economic interests — often in the form of resource exploitation. From the Middle East to Asia, US interventions abroad have enabled access for American firms to other countries’ oil, gas and minerals. But the first iteration of the Ukraine mineral deal, which Zelensky rejected in February, had been an especially brazen resource grab by Trump’s government. It required Ukraine to cede sovereignty over its land and resources to one country (the US), in order to defend itself from attacks by another (Russia). These terms were highly exploitative of a country fighting against a years-long military occupation. In addition, they violated Ukraine’s constitution, which puts the ownership of Ukraine’s natural resources in the hands of the Ukrainian people. Were Zelensky to accept this, he would have faced a tremendous backlash from the public. In comparison, the new deal sounds like a strategic and (potentially) commercial win for Ukraine. First, this agreement is more just, and it’s aligned with Ukraine’s short- and medium-term interests. Zelenksy describes it as an “equal partnership” that will modernise Ukraine. Under the terms, Ukraine will set up a United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund for foreign investments into the country’s economy, which will be jointly governed by both countries. Ukraine will contribute 50% of the income from royalties and licenses to develop critical minerals, oil and gas reserves, while the US can make its contributions in-kind, such as through military assistance or technology transfers. Ukraine maintains ownership over its natural resources and state enterprises. And the licensing agreements will not require substantial changes to the country’s laws, or disrupt its future integration with Europe. Importantly, there is no mention of retroactive debts for the US military assistance already received by Ukraine. This would have created a dangerous precedent, allowing other nations to seek to claim similar debts from Ukraine. Finally, the deal also signals the Trump administration’s commitment to “a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine” – albeit, still without any security guarantees. Profits may be a long time coming Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration and conservative media in the US are framing the deal as a win. For too long, Trump argues, Ukraine has enjoyed US taxpayer-funded military assistance, and such assistance now has a price tag. The administration has described the deal to Americans as a profit-making endeavour that can recoup monies spent defending Ukrainian interests. But in reality, profits are a long way off. The terms of the agreement clearly state the fund’s investment will be directed at new resource projects. Existing operations and state-owned projects will fall outside the terms of the agreement. Mining projects typically work within long time frames. The move from exploration to production is a slow, high-risk and enormously expensive process. It can often take over a decade. Add to this complexity the fact that some experts are sceptical Ukraine even has enormously valuable reserves. And to bring any promising deposits to market will require major investments. What’s perhaps more important It’s possible, however, that profits are a secondary calculation for the US. Boxing out China is likely to be as – if not more – important. Like other Western nations, the US is desperate to diversify its critical mineral supply chains. China controls not just a large proportion of the world’s known rare earths deposits, it also has a monopoly on the processing of most critical minerals used in green energy and defence technologies. The US fears China will weaponise its market dominance against strategic rivals. This is why Western governments increasingly make mineral supply chain resilience central to their foreign policy and defence strategies. Given Beijing’s closeness to Moscow and their deepening cooperation on natural resources, the US-Ukraine deal may prevent Russia — and, by extension, China — from accessing Ukrainian minerals. The terms of the agreement are explicit: “states and persons who have acted adversely towards Ukraine must not benefit from its reconstruction”. Finally, the performance of “the deal” matters just as much to Trump. Getting Zelensky to sign on the dotted line is progress in itself, plays well to Trump’s base at home, and puts pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to come to the table. So, the deal is a win for Zelensky because it gives the US a stake in an independent Ukraine. But even if Ukraine’s critical mineral reserves turn out to be less valuable than expected, it may not matter to Trump.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The agreement was an acknowledgment of the significance of their trade for mutual economic development and the health of the global economy, the joint statement says. China and the US agreed to roll back high tariffs imposed on one another last month for a period of 90 days. The agreement was announced in a joint statement issued on Monday, May 12. The agreement was a result of a high-level meeting on trade and economic affairs held between Chinese and US delegations in Geneva, Switzerland over the weekend. As described in a press conference on Monday by the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent who was part of the US delegation, both sides have agreed to reduce the tariffs by 115%. That would mean that the US will reduce its tariffs on China to 30% from its present 145% while the Chinese will lower their tariffs to 10% from its present 125%. These new tariff rates would be effective from Wednesday for the next 90 days. Both the countries also agreed to explore a more stable arrangement in the interim period. China also agreed to reverse additional measures imposed in response to US President Donald Trump’s tariff war, such as putting various US companies on the sanctions list and placing export controls on rare earth minerals. The parties committed to taking these measures as an acknowledgment of the mutual significance of their bilateral trade and its importance for the global economy and for “moving forward in the spirit of mutual opening, continued communication, cooperation and mutual respect,” a joint statement says. The 30% US tariff includes a 10% baseline tariff imposed on all imports by Trump in April after suspending his reciprocal tariff regime for 90 days, and a 20% tariff imposed by the Trump administration before April in the name of stopping the illegal flow of the drug fentanyl. Answering a question on the cooperation between both the countries over fentanyl, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry Lin Jian criticized “the wrongly slapped tariffs on Chinese imports” by citing the issue and claiming that “if the US truly wants to cooperate with China, it should stop vilifying and shifting the blame.” Jian also advised the US “to seek dialogue with China based on equality, respect and mutual benefit.” Relief for the global economy  Trump announced a reciprocal tariff regime on April 2 against all those countries which had a trade surplus with the US, including China. After global backlash, Trump later postponed the implementation of the regime for 90 days, inviting countries to seek bilateral agreements to avoid high tariffs while imposing a 10% common tariff. The Trump administration had claimed that reciprocal tariffs were required in order to lower the US trade deficit, which is over a trillion dollars. China, the third largest trade partner of the US, faced the highest tariff rates under Trump’s tariff war and chose to retaliate. It also called the policy a violation of international law and an attempt by the US to weaponize trade. On Tuesday, Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated his country’s position that there are no winners in trade and tariff wars, claiming bullying and hegemony will only result in self-isolation. He was addressing the fourth ministerial meeting of the China-CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) forum in Beijing. The tariff war between the world’s leading economies was seen as a disaster for the global economy and trade. A large number of US businesses had also opposed Trump’s tariff war. They had claimed high tariffs may lead to a rise in prices which harm both the consumer and domestic production. Several businesses filed lawsuits in the US claiming Trump’s reciprocal tariff regime was illegal and harmful for their ability to do business. US trade representative Jamieson Greer, who was part of the negotiating team in Geneva, claimed that the talks with various countries, including China, is the first step to reducing the US trade deficit and ending the national emergency declared by Trump to authorize the reciprocal tariff decrees, South China Morning Post reported. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce also hailed the agreement as “substantive progress” for mutual economic development. It expressed hope that “the US side will build on the meeting, continue to work with China in the same direction, completely rectify its wrong practices of unilateral tariff hikes, and keep strengthening mutually beneficial cooperation.” Acknowledging that “high levels of tariffs were equivalent to an embargo and neither side wanted that,” Bessent declared on Monday that the US wants a trade relationship with China, though a balanced one. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce also hoped that the US would pursue the matter much more seriously and “inject more certainty and stability into the world economy.” Both the countries have agreed to establish “a joint mechanism” to continue their trade and economic negotiations in future. Text under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Fourteen years after the Fukushima incident, faced with an energy crisis, geopolitical tensions and decarbonization goals, Japan launches nuclear power once again. The incident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant on March 11, 2011 seems like a distant memory. From now on, Japan is committed to “maximum utilization” of nuclear power, as stated in substance in the 7ᵉ Strategic Energy Plan, adopted on February 18, 2025 by the Japanese government. This is a 180-degree turn from the previous 2021 plan, which aimed to significantly reduce reliance on the atom. Japan, an Asian pioneer in this field, first connected a nuclear power plant to its electricity grid in 1966 (11 years before South Korea and 35 years before China!). So why is Tokyo turning back to nuclear power? In addition to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, soaring gas prices due to the war in Ukraine make nuclear power a more attractive option for Japan, a country that imports 90% of its energy needs. Nuclear-generated electricity will reach record levels in 2025, accounting for just under 10% of global production, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) in a report published in January 2025. This growth is driven by the electrification of uses and sectors such as electric vehicles and data centers. With the rise of artificial intelligence, the IEA predicts that the electricity needs of data centers could double by 2030, partly justifying Japan's decision to revive nuclear power. On a domestic scale, public opinion and changes in the Japanese political landscape offer further clues to understanding this reorientation. Japan is also banking on nuclear power to stay in the global geo-economic competition for energy. Government reassurances The release of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean on August 24, 2023 has aggravated neighborly relations in East Asia. Although the project was approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the release of over 1.3 million cubic meters of tritiated water provoked a furor in South Korea and a strong reaction from China, which suspended all imports of Japanese seafood for over a year. Are these contaminated waters really safe? Immediately after the meltdown of the three reactors, the most urgent objective was to cool the corium, a mixture of fuel and molten metal, with seawater. However, chemical treatment of the recovered water eliminates almost all radionuclides, with the exception of tritium. Since 2011, the Japanese government has been investigating the health repercussions of the accident, the results of which are being monitored by the Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. Of the millions of samples taken between 2011 and 2019, less than 1% exceeded the limit of 1,000 Bq/kg, in line with World Health Organization standards. The Ministry of the Environment has also set up an interim storage site for the most contaminated waste, at Okuma and Futaba, scheduled to operate until 2045. Understanding nuclear risk The power plant accidents at Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) were the result of human error, characteristic of what Ulrich Beck describes as the risk society. Fukushima, however, was the result of an earthquake followed by a tsunami. Despite the construction of anti-tsunami walls, the threat of natural disasters remains, as the Noto earthquake on January 1, 2024 reminded us. In one of the world's most seismically active countries, public opinion on nuclear risk has evolved considerably over the last ten years. Whereas in 2013 only 22% of Japanese supported the restarting of power plants, the most recent poll carried out in February 2023 by the leading national daily, Asahi Shimbun, showed that 51% of Japanese are now in favor of a return to nuclear power. An unprecedented political scene The early parliamentary elections of October 2024 forced the parties to clarify their positions on the role of the atom in the archipelago's power generation. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, hoping to strengthen the influence of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), called the elections, but they led to an electoral debacle. For the first time since 2009, the LDP and its center-right ally Komei no longer represent the main ruling coalition. This political crisis revealed the differences within the LDP-Komei on energy strategy. The conservative PLD advocates “maximizing the use” of nuclear power plants and the development of new reactors, while its ally advocates a non-atom-dependent society. Prior to the elections, the race for the LDP nomination had highlighted the reversals of Shigeru Ishiba's previously anti-nuclear rivals. The main opposition group, the Constitutional Democratic Party, led by popular former Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, recognizes the need to maintain some nuclear capacity in the short term, but rules out the construction of new power plants. Other groups, such as the People's Party and the Japan Innovation Party, advocate restarting power plants and modernizing the nuclear fleet. Finally, the Japanese Communist Party and several small environmentalist groups remain firmly anti-nuclear. Behind this ideological fragmentation within the Diet, however, all agree on the imperative of Japan's energy transition. Decarbonizing while remaining competitive In addition to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 73% in 2024 compared to 2013, Japan has also set an ambitious target of 20% to 22% nuclear power within the energy mix by 2030. However, with a fleet of 14 reactors currently in service, the country does not have the capacity to meet this target. It takes decades to build new power plants, and many years to restart existing reactors. Far from the Bataan nuclear power plant in the Philippines, and its "ghost" image, Southeast Asia represents a fast-growing market for nuclear power. Indonesia, for example, has unveiled plans to build 20 new power plants by 2036, focusing on small modular reactors that are safer, cheaper and quicker to build. Vietnam has also signed agreements with Japan. These projects are reshaping the energy landscape in Southeast Asia, and underscore the growing geo-economic competition. In addition to electricity production, Japan sees nuclear power as a vector of technological innovation, and therefore a lever of influence for its companies in this high-potential region. In July 2023, for example, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was appointed to lead a program on sodium-cooled fast reactors. Let's avoid any “sensationalism” about the return of the atom to Japan, as the energy mix remains largely carbon-based (oil: 38%; coal: 26%; natural gas: 21%; nuclear: 5.8%). This reversal is not a paradigm shift, but part of a worldwide trend, particularly in Asia, where three-quarters of the reactors under construction are located. The challenges facing the archipelago are numerous: geographical constraints, an energy-intensive economic model and an unfavorable geopolitical context that increases energy insecurity. As a result, the Japanese government's decision to revive nuclear power reflects a form of pragmatism.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Summary -The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have longstanding political and security interests in north and east Africa.- But the late 2010s saw a “geoeconomic turn” in their foreign policy. This has led the three Gulf states to make inroads into sub-Saharan Africa.- Energy and infrastructure are at the heart of this new economic involvement. These sectors serve Gulf interests, but they are also where Africa’s needs are greatest.- This is improving the image of Gulf states in Africa. This ties in with a trend among African governments to diversify their own international partners and foster competition among them.- The EU and its member states remain influential in Africa, but their involvement is declining. The Gulf expansion in Africa could exacerbate this—unless Europeans find a way to respond. The geoeconomic turn Africa is big business in today’s geopolitics and geoeconomics. “Great powers” have returned to compete on the continent, with rising powers like Turkey and Gulf monarchies snapping at their heels. African leaders, meanwhile, are capitalising on the fragmentation of the global order to foster competition among all these powers. In this evolving landscape, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Qatar are looking beyond their traditional African interests. The three Gulf states have long extended their reach into east and north Africa. There, they have worked to secure land and trading routes, extract resources and project influence over their preferred versions of Islam. In so doing they have tried (and spent big) to empower friendly governments and political actors through a combination of diplomatic, economic and security-related assistance. This political-military posturing has often drawn them into competition with one another—for instance through their involvement in the conflicts in Yemen and Libya. The UAE has been by far the most assertive of the three states in this regard, with recent Emirati involvement in Sudan’s civil war prompting regional and international condemnation. Despite these political interests, the late 2010s saw a “geoeconomic turn” in the foreign policy of the Gulf powers. This has led them to make inroads deeper into Africa. The covid-19 pandemic and falling oil prices hit sectors crucial to these states economies: aviation, for instance, as well as tourism and logistics. These oil and gas producers also know that fossil fuels will be out of the picture at some point in the future, thanks to the global energy transition. With its booming markets and rich natural resources, sub-Saharan Africa brings opportunities for Gulf states to diversify their economies. Moreover, African governments offer them backing to pursue a dual approach to the energy transition: no pressure to lose the oil and gas right now (and Africa offers plenty of prospects in that regard) but opportunities also position themselves as leaders in sectors vital to future economies—from renewables to minerals. Such pragmatic engagement should guarantee Gulf states greater returns than costly security politics in their “near abroad”. This could all affect European interests in Africa, not least because the continent is also becoming a crucial partner for Europeans to sustain and diversify their own energy supplies. In our 2024 paper “Beyond competition” we examined the UAE’s involvement in African energy sectors, setting out how Europeans might mitigate the risks that poses and grasp the opportunities. This policy brief expands on that research. First, it breaks down the UAE’s, Saudi Arabia’s and Qatar’s geoeconomic activities in sub-Saharan Africa, zooming in on energy as a central focus of their strategy. Next, it analyses the divergences in the Gulf states’ economic expansion, and how these interact with their traditional African interests. Finally, it explains how Europeans should grapple with this emerging phenomenon. Africa and a fragmenting global order Over the past five years, economic and geopolitical turmoil has changed how big and rising powers compete in Africa—and how African countries relate to the rest of the world. This is the case for both political and economic engagement. Africa The African embrace of diversification reflects a broader movement within the global south that advocates a reimagined global order. Within this, a key demand is for equity, inclusivity and agency in global governance structures—indicating a deliberate pivot away from historical dependencies on Western-led models. This includes traditional frameworks of aid and development. This multipolar moment gained momentum as the tumult of the post-covid years and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine intensified. As Western states focused on economic and geopolitical upheavals closer to home, many African leaders saw neglect and self-centredness. This was exemplified in African criticism of Western vaccine hoarding, and then of the redirection of aid to Ukraine at the expense of African crises. So African leaders have increasingly sought out alternative partners.   But these developments only exacerbated a more longstanding trend. From the early 2000s onwards, Western engagement with Africa has steadily declined. Other powers—such as China, Turkey and Russia—have expanded their influence. Indeed, Russia and China in particular have leveraged African aspirations and grievances against Western-led frameworks. This has helped them legitimise their political, economic and military projection in Africa. It could also open up space for stronger West-free alliances, such as through the BRICS+ grouping (which the UAE joined and to which Saudi Arabia was invited in 2024). Gulf The African embrace of multipolarity resonates with Gulf powers, which underpin their own foreign policy with an aim to cultivate partnerships across the east-west and north-south spectrum. Gulf states do not explicitly adopt anti-Western rhetoric. But, to address their domestic imperatives, they are strategically tapping into African governments’ call for alternative partners. The three states offer their African partners development cooperation and financing that depart from the Western model. They tend to offer a more flexible and rapid deployment of funding. Their state-backed economic models also align political agendas with strategic investments. This allows them to leverage their financial resources to fill the capital and political void left by other international players. Such alignment is timely and could be mutually beneficial as African and Gulf states navigate the shifting dynamics of global power distribution. It also seems to be boosting Gulf states’ political capital with African governments. But the monarchies’ strategic interests may not always line up with Africa’s long-term development goals, which could foster extractive and exploitative relationships. Their expansion in Africa could also reduce the space for Europeans to rebuild their ties with the continent. Europe Europeans maintain a significant presence in Africa. But the fragmenting global order could challenge their status, particularly in the face of the second Trump presidency and its implications for Western unity. European economic engagement in Africa has been declining for some time, just as Western governance, aid and financing models are meeting competition For now the EU remains sub-Saharan Africa’s largest trading partner, with trade flows between the two regions valued at approximately $300bn annually. Yet, the EU’s share of trade with sub-Saharan Africa has dropped significantly since 1990. This reflects competition from countries like China, whose rapid ascent is evident in its large increases of both imports and exports with the region. Indeed, China now rivals the EU in terms of imports to sub-Saharan Africa.   Sub-Saharan Africa’s imports from China have grown especially in the consumer-goods sector, but also increasingly in the energy and other industrial sectors. The EU, meanwhile, continues to dominate in imports of high-value goods such as machinery, chemicals and vehicles. Sub-Saharan Africa exports primarily raw materials, minerals, and oil to Europe, akin to its exports to other regions, such as China and the Gulf countries. Emerging players like the UAE have witnessed a steady growth in their overall share (though percentages do not reach 10% of the total yet). Gulf-Africa (geo)economic relations on the riseInvestment and finance The scale of Gulf financial engagement in Africa underscores the monarchies’ expansion. In 2022 and 2023 the Gulf Cooperation Council states collectively funnelled nearly $113bn of FDI into the continent, exceeding their total investments over the previous decade ($102bn). The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are investing most in sectors that not only reflect their interests, but in which Africa’s needs are greatest: energy and climate and infrastructure It is the infrastructure (and connectivity) investments that form the backbone of their expansion. Interests among the states overlap, but the UAE invested first and by far the most in ports, logistics networks and special economic zones. Saudi Arabia is the main investor in roads. All three states have stakes in sub-Saharan Africa’s air connectivity, though Saudi Arabia to a lesser extent to date.  These investments open up new opportunities across the continent. They also boost the Gulf states’ geostrategic presence, helping to fill a gap in Africa’s infrastructure that China has only partially filled over the last 20 years—while the EU is only now trying to launch a comeback with the Global Gateway. Moreover, Gulf states are helping to fill the funding gap that Western financiers left as they withdrew. In 2021, for example, the UAE pledged $4.5bn to support energy transition efforts in Africa. This financial commitment is meant to support green energy, infrastructure development and the wider energy transition. In March 2024, four Emirati banks helped the Africa Finance Corporation (AFC) raise $1.15bn in the largest syndicated loan ever pooled together by the AFC. Saudi Arabia, which has long provided development assistance to Africa through the Saudi Development Fund, signed a 2023 memorandum of understanding with the AFC to jointly finance infrastructure across the continent. In late 2024 the Saudi government pledged $41bn through a mix of financing tools to finance start-ups, provide import-export credit and spur private sector growth in Africa over the next 10 years. In 2022 Qatar pledged a $200m donation for climate adaptation projects in African countries vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including funding for drought and flood mitigation programmes, as well as renewable energy access in off-grid communities. In 2024 it contributed to the creation of Rwanda’s Virunga Africa Fund I, launched with $250m to strengthen social services and private sector growth in innovative domains in Rwanda and the rest of Africa. However, many of the investments and deals are opaque and come with limited accountability. This raises questions about whether Gulf-Africa financial and investment partnerships will truly be mutually beneficial. The balance of power often tilts in favour of the Gulf monarchies due to their financial strength, which may lead to asymmetrical outcomes—including a potential increase of debt burdens in Africa. Despite focusing on critical sectors for Africa’s development, these investments may not shift the underlying dynamics of extractivism that have historically characterised Africa’s relations with external players. As the trade data clearly show, this includes the Gulf states. Trade The UAE’s foreign policy has long been more focused on trade than that of the other two Gulf states. Accordingly, trade (including those goods it re-imports and exports via its economic zones) between the UAE and sub-Saharan Africa has grown robustly over the past decade. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, have seen more limited change. The UAE ventured early into trade, logistics and services to secure sustainable revenues—particularly Dubai, an emirate with very limited oil reserves. Emiratis have undertaken extensive expansion of port and transport infrastructure across Africa (led by logistics giants such as the Dubai-based DP World and, more recently, Abu Dhabi Ports). This has helped turn the UAE into a trade gateway between Africa and the world.   The composition of Gulf-Africa trade reveals deeper dynamics in the economic relationship. In line with their global trading patterns, fuels and hydrocarbon derivatives dominate Emirati, Qatari and Saudi exports to sub-Saharan Africa. This reflects the centrality of fossil fuels in Gulf states’ expansion in the continent. The population of sub-Saharan Africa is rapidly growing; the region is also industrialising and urbanising at pace. The whole of Africa’s energy demand will likely increase by 30% by 2040—including fossil fuels. This creates new markets for Gulf states in sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan African exports to the Gulf, meanwhile, are largely made up of metals and minerals, including gold, as well as agricultural products. This underscores how the export relationship is largely extractive. Gold trade is particularly notable in the sub-Saharan Africa-UAE relationship, helping consolidate the country as a key global importer and refiner of the precious metal.   These trade patterns highlight mutual dependencies but also expose structural imbalances. Sub-Saharan Africa’s export profile—heavily skewed toward raw commodities—limits its benefits to African states, while Gulf countries capitalise on higher-value imports and exports. Energy diplomacy and the green transition Africa’s vast natural resources mean the continent is central to the global energy transition. Alongside reserves of oil and gas, it boasts plentiful minerals essential for renewable technologies (such as lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements), abundant solar energy potential, and well-preserved forests for carbon offset. This, combined with the region’s large and increasing energy demand, helps centre energy and climate in the Gulf’s African expansion. A rapid transition away from fossil fuels is unrealistic for the Gulf states, given their reliance on them for export revenues and GDP. In Africa, meanwhile, oil and gas still account for 40% of energy consumed by end users (its final energy consumption). As discussed, this creates new markets for Gulf states in which they can help meet Africa’s current and future demand. But Africa also acts as a gateway to new energy value chains. Gulf leaders know the hydrocarbon era is waning. This means they could lose the leverage oil and gas brought them in global energy governance. To maintain their relevance, they aim to lead in green economies too. They therefore work to integrate Africa’s energy markets and resources into their broader strategy for sustainable economic transformation. Hydrocarbons Gulf countries’ economies are betting on African governments’ interest in further exploiting their oil and gas resources to increase revenues and fulfil growing demand. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are mostly eyeing investments in distribution (downstream), and transportation and storage (midstream); while they have traditionally shown limited interest in Africa’s oil and gas exploration and production (upstream). Qatar, by contrast, is more focused on exploring upstream production and increasing its stakes in Africa’s LNG sector. This aligns with Qatar’s unique energy profile as a leader in the global LNG market. It also gels with its long-term strategy to consolidate global dominance in natural gas, especially as the energy transition increases demand for cleaner-burning fuels like gas. The UAE might be eyeing Africa’s LNG sector as well, as it expects natural gas to contribute more significantly to its energy mix by 2050, but currently relies on Qatar for nearly one-third of its supply. Africa may prove helpful in expanding gas investments. Emirati energy giant Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, for example, has a stake in Mozambique’s Rovuma LNG project and a gas deal with BP in Egypt.   African countries find common ground with the Gulf states in resisting the rapid phase out of oil and gas advocated by advanced economies. For African nations, oil and gas remain vital sources of revenue, industrial growth and energy security; Gulf states need these resources as they are integral to their global influence and economic diversification efforts. This challenges the European position on oil and gas, and their reciprocal alignment could cement stronger consensus around a dual approach to the energy transition. Green value chains The UAE’s “We the UAE 2031” vision and Saudi Arabia’s “Vision 2030” are economic reform plans that include commitments to diversify their economies away from hydrocarbons. This underscores their leaders’ recognition that fossil fuels may not be around forever, but mainly that green value chains hold great value. The UAE and Saudi Arabia (but much less so Qatar) are therefore investing in the green energy transitions, both at home and abroad. Their investment also allows them to maintain their influence in global energy decision-making, including the speed and pathways to a net-zero world and economy. With its abundant solar and wind resources, sub-Saharan Africa is an ideal testing ground for Gulf countries to expand their renewable energy expertise. It is also an environment in which they can develop scalable projects and build exportable green technology capacities. All three Gulf states are investing in solar and wind plants across sub-Saharan Africa. They have also shown appetite in other renewable fields, such as batteries, green hydrogen and thermal energy. The UAE leads in this through its companies Masdar and AMEA Power; Saudi Arabia’s ACWA Power is also getting in on the act. Qatar has been eyeing opportunities for investments, though it favours joint or brownfield investments in large foreign companies’ projects to limit risks and costs.   Though several of these commitments are today pledges, their involvement could potentially contribute to expanding access to energy in Africa, helping address the continent’s critical energy deficit. Their dual-track approach to the energy transition allows them to advocate for a pragmatic transition that balances decarbonisation with energy security and economic development, enhancing their reputation among African governments as forward-thinking states on energy. Critical minerals At the same time, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are investing in mineral value chains. This underlines the strategic importance of these resources in their economic diversification and technological ambitions. Gold is the top import product from Africa to the UAE. But other minerals such as copper also rank high in Emirati imports—and in those to Saudi Arabia as well. These minerals are the backbone of the green economy. They are also critical for the digital transformation (including AI and defence, with the UAE eyeing dual-use minerals as it develops its national defence industry), but also infrastructure. In line with its trade-focused foreign policy, the UAE is seemingly more interested in tapping into the trade of these commodities. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, seems keen to access raw resources for import, necessary to boost its industrial ambitions at home. Under Vision 2030, Saudi Arabia aims to develop domestic manufacturing and high-tech industries, such as electric vehicles and renewable energy technologies. Accessing African minerals aims to support this strategy by providing the necessary input for domestic production, and enabling Saudi Arabia to move up the value chain.   For African countries, the global race for critical minerals is a unique opportunity to move beyond their traditional role as providers of raw commodities. Many African governments recognise the potential of these resources to catalyse industrialisation, create jobs and generate more value domestically. This shift in perspective has led to increasing demands for investments that prioritise local processing and manufacturing rather than merely extracting and exporting raw materials. However, the extent to which Gulf players will align with these aspirations remains uncertain. Where the Gulf states diverge Despite some similar drivers, Emirati, Saudi and Qatari approaches in Africa vary significantly. The nuances stem from the states’ different domestic imperatives and foreign policy strategies. Although the shift to geoeconomics is clear, this underlines how the three states—especially the UAE—could still influence security across the continent as well as in their traditional regions of interest. Country profiles The UAE lacks significant domestic industrial capacity (except for the gold sector). This means it needs bigger and better trade routes to secure its revenues. Here, Africa’s expanding consumer markets and its centrality in green value chains offers an opportunity. Abu Dhabi adopts a risk-prone, largely state-backed, approach—though this is mitigated by a strong orientation towards economic returns. The UAE’s presence is becoming increasingly entrenched across the African continent. Despite focusing outwardly on economics, the UAE’s ability to leverage political influence to safeguard its interests has not gone away, as its involvement in Sudan shows. This politico-security approach is less visible in other parts of Africa, though it remains a tool that could shape Emirati-African relations in the years ahead. As the UAE’s economic interests expand in Africa, its leaders may find they have more to protect—which could increase the risk of them deploying the security approach.  The UAE’s energy diplomacy reinforces the idea that the country’s involvement in Africa will extend beyond economic ventures: the 2024 COP28 climate conference in Dubai, for instance, laid bare Emirati ambitions to position the UAE as a global leader in the energy transition. African alignment with the monarchy on the need for a dual approach makes Africa a key arena for Abu Dhabi to mobilise consensus. Saudi Arabia faces urgent domestic socio-economic imperatives linked to a growing population (largely under the age of 25) and high unemployment rates. This contrasts with the UAE and Qatar, which grapple with a shortage of domestic workforce. Africa is therefore appealing as a contributor to Riyadh’s economic transformation programme, which envisages a strong diversification of the economy. Green value chains rank high amid these efforts. But internal socio-economic constraints and the urgency of domestic reforms have prompted Riyadh to adopt a risk-averse stance. This has resulted in cautious and geographically limited engagement across the African continent. This caution contrasts with Riyadh’s more interventionist posture in the 2010s in the near abroad. Its aggressive policies to gain allies on the African side of the Red Sea strained rivalries with its neighbours. This included, for instance, the monarchy’s war against Houthis in Yemen from 2015, and its interference that contributed to the ousting of Sudan’s president Omar al-Bashir in 2019. Saudi Arabia now relies more on soft power and economic diplomacy, leveraging its traditional leadership of the Muslim world and development aid to advance its influence. This has led it towards a new approach largely oriented towards stabilisation—especially in the Horn of Africa—and multilateral dialogue. Yet, as Riyadh seeks to balance economic imperatives with geopolitical caution, its engagement in Africa remains transactional. Today, it is driven by immediate strategic needs rather than a long-term vision. Qatar, unlike the UAE and Saudi Arabia, is less constrained by energy transition-related pressures. Its reliance on gas provides Doha with greater economic stability (albeit vulnerable to overdependence on gas for revenues) and a competitive edge in the global energy market. Qatar has not to date significantly changed its approach to Africa, which is characterised by a focus on selective, strategically significant investments that hold both political and economic relevance. These targeted initiatives aim to strengthen bilateral ties in key sectors rather than pursuing broad-based engagement. This restraint is a reflection of Doha’s limited institutional knowledge of Africa and an overall risk-averse foreign policy, which often leads to it to engage in brownfield investments rather than expand into new ventures. Qatar, similar to Saudi Arabia, pursues a soft-power approach to political affairs on the continent. This is characterised by a strong emphasis on conflict mediation. It has played key diplomatic roles in past negotiations, such as in the Darfur conflict, the Eritrea-Djibouti border dispute and Somali reconciliation efforts. More recently, in March 2025 it hosted mediations between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, managing to bring both sides to the table where other negotiators failed. This approach aims to enhance its global standing as a facilitator of dialogue and peace. Its Africa strategy is a balancing act between economic priorities and broader diplomatic ambitions.   What this means for Europe The EU and its member states will have to work with Gulf states in Africa. If they fail to do so, their political and economic decline on the continent could accelerate. This would also likely open up space for power blocs such as Gulf-China and Gulf-Russia partnerships to deepen their relations with African countries. But a lack of engagement with Gulf states also means Europeans would miss out on opportunities. Crucially, Europeans could benefit from collaboration with Gulf powers to align with African governments in shaping reciprocal green industrial transitions. These risks and opportunities stem from the strengths and weaknesses of Gulf states’ involvement in Africa.   These features also create synergies between Europe and Gulf states in Africa. The EU and its member states can add unique value to sectors vital to Gulf states’ interests, which could help mitigate the risks both sides face. Gulf countries, for example, would benefit from European technological know-how and innovation in sectors such as renewable energy. Moreover, Europeans have extensive experience and interest in human capital development; Saudi Arabia’s and Qatar’s soft-power approach means they have a growing interest in providing education and training. This could combine to help build the skilled and educated workforce that Africa’s rapid development and industrialisation requires. More synergies exist in Europeans’ longstanding political and institutional presence across Africa, as well as their focus on regulatory frameworks and experience dealing with African markets and governance structures. This could all be of use to the less Africa-experienced Gulf countries, helping to minimise their exposure to political and economic uncertainties. Europeans would gain reciprocal benefits through access to Gulf states’ financial resources, their capacity to roll out large scale projects, and their work to expand connectivity. The monarchies are also building greater influence in forums such as the UN and the G20, and more specifically in the energy sector (the COP climate conferences, for example, but also Saudi Arabia’s Future Minerals Forum). Through this, Europeans could leverage their relations with Gulf states in Africa to respond to the demands of the global south for equality in global governance. This would not only bolster Europe’s role in Africa’s sustainable growth but also help Europeans maintain a competitive edge in the evolving global energy and geoeconomic landscape. African governments would also benefit. Cultivating a diverse range of international partners lies at the heart of their newly enhanced bargaining geopolitical and economic power. This means that fostering Europe-Gulf cooperation could be vital for Africans to mitigate the risks of a declining European presence and the expanding (but still nascent) expansion by Gulf states. How Europeans should respond Initially, the EU and its member states should focus on four opportunities for cooperation with Gulf and African states. 1.Energy cooperation and access. The growing presence of Gulf states in Africa’s energy transition means Europeans can help improve access to (clean) energy across the continent. Gulf states are investing in power-generation projects and transport networks. These could enhance Africa’s economic growth, contribute to its market expansion (also through regional integration), and make the continent more attractive for other investors. Europe’s technological expertise in renewable energy complements the Gulf states’ investment capabilities and ambitions in this sector. a.Opportunity: Europeans should consider joint investment with Gulf states in Africa’s renewable energy projects. The UAE’s Masdar and Saudi Arabia’s ACWA Power can roll out large-scale renewable projects. European governments and companies would benefit from collaboration with such companies and with African governments, not only to help boost Africa’s renewable capacity but also to reduce the risks and costs of investment. For example, the government of Mauritania is already collaborating with the UAE’s Infinity Power and the German developer Conjuncta to develop a 10 gigawatt green hydrogen plant in the country. European energy companies should also leverage Qatar’s risk-aversion and interest in reducing risks via partnerships to expand their operations (as hinted at in a 2024 deal between Italy’s Enel Green Power and the Qatar Investment Authority). b.Risk: If Europeans do not take up such opportunities, Gulf countries could end up dominating Africa’s renewables sector. Their involvement in the continent’s energy market expansion may prioritise Gulf-centric policies over European or African climate and energy as well as industrial interests. Without a stronger European presence, Europe risks missing opportunities to contribute shaping Africa’s energy landscape in a way that aligns with both European interests and global climate objectives. 2.Cross-regional infrastructure development. The Gulf states’ investment in infrastructure and regional connectivity mean Europeans could help boost Africa’s economic growth and stimulate investors’ interest. Given the sheer scale and complexity of these projects, trilateral cooperation would help distribute costs, risks and expertise. By proactively collaborating with Gulf states, in particular the UAE and Saudi Arabia, Europeans can secure a role in Africa’s infrastructure transformation. This would help them ensure that major projects also align with European trade interests and long-term strategic priorities. a.Opportunity: The EU and member states should cooperate with Gulf and African states on infrastructure, focusing on the UAE’s maritime and logistics capabilities and Saudi Arabia’s substantial infrastructure investment. This would enable them to accelerate critical projects, from roads to power plants and energy distribution systems. Europeans should also collaborate with Gulf and African states on cross-regional railways. Trilateral cooperation on such initiatives as the “Lobito Corridor” (linking Angola, DRC and Zambia) would contribute to the development of high-impact infrastructure that no single state could easily undertake alone. b.Risk: If Europe does not do this, it risks being sidelined from new trade corridors and supply chains that will shape the continent’s economic and geopolitical landscape. Control over critical infrastructure—ports, railways, logistics hubs and energy networks—is a vital tool of geoeconomic influence, determining who facilitates and benefits from Africa’s economic growth. If Europe remains passive, Gulf and other external actors could shape Africa’s infrastructure in ways that reduce European access, limit European firms’ market participation and weaken Europe’s overall influence on regional economic integration. 3.Capacity building and human capital development. Africa’s rapid development requires an educated and skilled workforce. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have a growing interest in education and vocational training, an area in which Europeans have extensive experience. This is another potential area for trilateral cooperation. a.Opportunity: The EU and member states should collaborate with African and Gulf countries to launch joint capacity-building initiatives. Europeans would bring a unique contribution to these efforts through their experience in advanced training models, institution-building and regulatory frameworks. Moreover, African countries should proactively coordinate new Gulf efforts with European know-how, particularly in vital sectors such as energy and infrastructure. b.Risk: Inaction from European and African governments could mean Gulf-led training programmes shape Africa’s workforce according to the monarchies’ strategic priorities. This risks limiting European influence in Africa’s future development. It could also compromise European access to a skilled African workforce—essential to ensure foreign investors can ensure they meet African demands for local content. 4.Financial instruments and investment mechanisms. Africa’s development requires significant capital inflows, but investors often see the continent as high risk. The Gulf states’ growing role as both a financier and developer of Africa’s energy infrastructure presents opportunities for joint de-risking strategies. This would help both European and Gulf investors to overcome these risks. By pooling resources and expertise, Europe and Gulf countries can expand the capital available to fill Africa’s financing gaps—particularly for large-scale energy and infrastructure projects. a.Opportunity: European financial institutions should work with their African counterparts and Gulf investors and developers to de-risk their investment in Africa. This should include, for example, the European Investment Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, but also member states’ development banks such as the KfW (Germany) or Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (Italy). Such collaboration would help them de-risk investments and roll out large-scale infrastructure and energy projects, or scale up existing ones. This collaboration would appeal particularly to risk-averse countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. b.Risk: Without this, Gulf investors could increasingly dominate Africa’s investment landscape. This shift could result in financial structures that, while effective for Gulf interests, may not align with European business practices, regulatory standards or long-term sustainability goals. That would likely result in European companies facing a more competitive and opaque investment environment. It could also erode Europe’s ability to promote investments that meet both Africa’s needs and European objectives. These four initial opportunities could act as a testing ground for trilateral cooperation. This, in turn, may create new synergies between all three parties. Europeans would then be well placed to build on this initial engagement to safeguard its geopolitical and geoeconomic interests in Africa; while developing new partnerships with rising powers that may benefit Europeans well beyond the continent.  Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for their generous support that allowed us to organise workshops and conduct extensive research and travel. We are immensely grateful to Kim Butson, our editor, for helping us keep a clear direction, and for her unwavering patience especially in the last editorial phases. And to Nastassia Zenovich for giving such a great visual shape to our ideas. We are also very thankful to the entire ECFR Africa and MENA teams’ colleagues for regular brainstorming and helping us challenge our assumptions. Last but not least, this paper would not have been possible without the many officials, diplomats, experts and thinkers in Europe, Africa and the Gulf, who generously dedicated their time and ideas, contributing significantly to shaping this project.This article was first published by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) [here].

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском By assuming that trade relations are a zero-sum game in which one party must lose for the other to win, and that a trade deficit represents a loss while a surplus represents a win, President Trump reveals a simplistic view far removed from the dynamics of international trade. Let’s imagine that the global economy is Central America, that Costa Rica imports more goods than it exports, and that other countries accept paper printed by its Central Bank — bills in colones — as payment for their exports. Furthermore, let’s assume that a good portion of their trade surpluses are used to buy Costa Rican government bonds and make deposits in its banks, accepting — due to confidence in the strength of its economy — lower interest rates than they might obtain in other markets, and that those debts can be paid with the same printed paper. Trade deficits arise because a significant share of Costa Rican consumers and investors prefer to source final, intermediate, and capital goods from other Central American countries where prices are lower than at home. In other words, those deficits are the result of a national choice to enjoy a higher quality of life and greater productivity than what its economy would otherwise allow. Under these circumstances, Costa Rica, far from being a victim of other countries’ policies, would actually be enjoying levels of consumption above its means and economic growth beyond what its productivity would justify. The willingness of those countries to hold the colones derived from their trade surpluses in Costa Rican government bonds and bank deposits results in lower interest rates in Costa Rica. This enables a higher sustainable level of public debt, greater investment at low cost to improve infrastructure and service quality, and lower interest rates for private investment — all of which contribute to a higher rate of economic growth without endangering macroeconomic stability. In such a scenario, making imports more expensive through tariffs to boost local production competitiveness and eliminate trade deficits would, one by one, remove these advantages — amounting to nothing more than an own goal. This remains true even if Central American countries did not retaliate by restoring relative competitiveness to its starting point, and even if Costa Rican investors were not left uncertain about whether a future government might remove the tariffs. The U.S. economy faces the world in a situation identical to that hypothetical scenario of Costa Rica. It takes advantage of the fact that with paper printed by its central bank — the dollar — can pay for the real production of other countries, allowing it to live far beyond its means. Far from being “cheated” by other nations, as Trump claims, the United States enjoys a standard of living well above its capacity precisely because of this. That does not mean the U.S. is cheating anyone, since it is thanks to its economic strength that the rest of the world accepts that paper as a means of payment and trusts in its government bonds and banking system. Thus, by assuming that trade relations are a “zero-sum game” — where one must lose for the other to win — and that a trade deficit signals losing while a surplus signals winning, President Trump ignores these realities. He reveals a board-game level of simplification, detached from the complex chessboard that defines international trade dynamics. It is nothing less than a massive own goal. Trade deficits are an economic problem for countries like Costa Rica, which must pay for their imports using foreign currency, often requiring them to take on debt and/or attract foreign investment through subsidies and tax exemptions. This combination of factors permanently threatens macroeconomic stability and forces governments to limit spending on infrastructure and social services to free up resources to cover interest payments and the growing fiscal costs of structuring an economy based on incentives to foreign companies. Adding to the absurdity of Trump’s proposals, his goal is to achieve trade surpluses with every country in the world. However, the United States does not produce coffee or cocoa; thus, with some of the countries that export these products, running trade deficits is not only inevitable but also beneficial for the U.S. Many countries in the region, even without the advantages the United States enjoys, are unlikely to avoid trade deficits — for example, with oil-producing countries or those manufacturing goods that incorporate cutting-edge technologies. In such cases, raising tariffs could severely damage their economies. Trump boasts that the countries affected by the tariffs are lining up to renegotiate, claiming that this was his goal. If so, it marks the beginning of an uncertain period, contaminated by threats and blackmail, with China standing by to benefit from the resentment against the United States. This scenario will severely affect private sector investment plans, employment, and economic growth — not only in the United States but around the world. Far from "Making America Great Again" (MAGA), Trump is diminishing both his country and the world while violating every rule of international trade, both global ones under the WTO framework and those contained in free trade agreements like CAFTA-DR. This, of course, validates the concerns of those of us who argued that such treaties did not guarantee protected access to the U.S. market against political or geopolitical shifts. In international relations, the historical rule has been that decisions are not based on any moral or legal absolutes but rather on the exercise of power from unequal positions ("might is right"). This is why we always doubted that a free trade agreement with weaker countries would truly guide the behavior of the United States. But Trump's overwhelming violations of international law (surprisingly and disappointingly supported by more than half of his country’s political establishment) strip the United States of any moral authority to criticize countries that do not act according to the rules. This imposing attitude, reaffirmed by Trump when he paraphrases emperors and tyrants — enemies of any democratic principle — who claimed that "those who save their country violate no law," leads us to a world where anything is permitted for those who hold power. From the perspective of the definition of civilization, a world where anything goes loses its value. It takes us back to the law of the jungle — the rule of the strongest, of violence and war, or of peace imposed by one over others, not through harmony and goodwill. This is not a new “Washington Consensus”, now guided by the mercantilism typical of the 18th and 19th centuries, because in this case neither multilateral organizations like the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund nor other Western powers share Trump’s decisions. Far from consensus, today the most frequently heard word in those circles is “retaliation”. Latin America will be affected by the potential decline in global GDP growth, the tariffs imposed on our exports, and the rise in interest rates resulting from inflation that could be triggered by higher import taxes in the United States. However, the region could benefit from the U.S. confrontation with its developed-world allies by strengthening economic ties with Europe, China, Japan, India, and other powers of the Global South — without, of course, abandoning the U.S. market. To achieve this, our governments must stop meekly following Trump’s directives, such as preventing Huawei from competing to sell us 5G technology, participating in a shameful deportation policy that violates fundamental human rights, or undermining Panama’s absolute sovereignty over the Canal. What is needed is to build and implement a foreign policy with dignity, one that best serves the interests of each of our countries — not the whims of a single power.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The Liberal Party led by Mark Carney has secured a fourth consecutive term in government. This victory has come at a time when Canada is facing an unprecedented threat to its economic security and sovereignty from United States President Donald Trump. In an election defined by concerns over Trump’s erratic tariff policy and talk of making Canada a 51st state, voters decided Carney was the leader best equipped to deal with these challenges. Carney previously served as governor of the Bank of Canada, where he guided the country through the 2008 global financial crisis. He later became the first non-British person to head the Bank of England, helping guide the United Kingdom through Brexit, one of the biggest shocks to the British economy in decades. Now the world is facing similar financial shocks from Trump’s trade war. The on-again, off-again nature of Trump’s tariff policy could inflict significant damage to the global economy — even more to the American economy — and cause irreparable damage to its reputation as a rational entity in international trade. In the face of the ill-advised and self-defeating U.S. tariffs, the new Canadian government should take prudent, urgent and bold steps to strengthen the nation’s economy. Here are major and important economic priorities for the government to reshape the economy and spur much-needed economic growth. Stabilize and strengthen the national economy As a primary act, the new government should stabilize the Canadian economy from the tariff shocks. It must continue to develop carefully calibrated retaliations to Trump’s tariffs. The revenue raised from the tariffs should be used to compensate those directly affected by them, using a multi-pronged mechanism that includes training, increased employment insurance benefits and additional transfers to low-income households to reduce the impact of tariffs on food costs. Currently, a series of provincial regulations restrict the goods and services that cross Canada’s provincial borders daily. The new government should urgently remove longstanding interprovincial trade barriers. According to a report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, removing these impediments could boost the economy by up to $200 billion annually. Similarly, a study by the International Monetary Fund indicates the effect of these barriers is equivalent to a 21 per cent tariff. Removing interprovincial trade barriers would significantly offset the negative effects of Trump’s tariffs on the Canadian economy, and provide a boost to the “Buy Canadian” movement. Carney seems to have made this a priority already, which is promising. In March, he said he aims to have “free trade by Canada Day” among provinces and territories. Streamlining natural resource projects Canada is a natural resource superpower. However, for natural resources and critical minerals to be extracted efficiently, regulatory processes need to be streamlined by cutting red tape and duplicative assessments. The federal government and the provinces should agree to a single environmental assessment that meets the standards of both jurisdictions. Additionally and importantly, respectful, genuine and meaningful consultations must be undertaken by project proponents and governments with the relevant Indigenous communities to address their concerns, respect their rights and safeguard their economic well-being in the development of the natural resources projects. Carney has said he will uphold the principle of free, prior and informed consent when it comes to initiating resource extraction projects and make it easier for Indigenous communities to become owners of said projects. A similar approach should also guide the construction of infrastructure projects such as pipelines and ports, which play a crucial role in facilitating Canada’s exports. Boost Canada’s productivity through innovation A country’s ability to raise living standards for its people mostly depends on its capacity to improve its productivity. Economist Paul Krugman once stated, “productivity is not everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything.” Canada’s productivity is lagging, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The new Canadian government should take steps to boost the nation’s productivity by increasing direct expenditures on research and development. Additional funding should be allocated to higher institutions of learning, and incentivizing businesses to spend more on research and development through significant tax credits. Although research and development spending continues to grow in Canada, as a percentage to GDP, it is the second lowest among G7 nations. Boosting investments will drive innovation, spur economic growth and ensure Canada remains competitive on the global stage. Dealing with U.S. tariffs One of the government’s primary tasks will be preparing meticulously for trade negotiations with the U.S. to address the threat of tariffs and reach a “win-win” trade deal. Given Trump’s highly unpredictable nature, negotiations will not be easy. Although Trump could have withdrawn from the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), he has not done so, and zero-tariffs remain in effect for products that are certified as being North American origin under the CUSMA rules. This could be a solid starting point for future trade negotiations. At the same time, Carney and his team must work to stabilize the Canadian economy against the unprecedented threat of Trump’s tariffs by strengthening the domestic economy, diversifying Canada’s exports and reducing the country’s dependence on the U.S. Pulling away from the world’s largest economy will not be easy for Canadian businesses, given the deep integration of Canada’s economy with that of the U.S. Still, expanding trade with the European Union, the U.K., Africa and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations — and exploring other opportunities to reducing trade barriers with nations in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America — will enlarge Canada’s export market. By doing all this, Canada can not only prepare for a tough round of U.S. trade talks but also position itself as a stronger, more self-reliant global trading partner.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском I. Introduction U.S. trade with China has significantly grown in recent decades and is crucial for both countries. Today, China is one of the largest export markets for U.S. goods and services (second to Mexico), and the United States is the top export market for China. As Figure 1 shows, this trade—much of which increased after China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001—has brought lower prices to U.S. consumers and higher profits for American companies. But it also comes with costs, notably the loss of American jobs because of import competition, automation, and multinational companies moving manufacturing overseas.   Figure 1: US-China Trade over the 20 years Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. After President Donald Trump began a so-called trade war with China in 2018, economic tensions between China and the U.S. have been on the rise. Chinese officials have warned that there are “no winners” in a trade war, but the second Trump administration embarked on a new and more aggressive tariff policy. In the first months of his second administration, Trump has threatened tariffs as high as 145 percent on all Chinese goods, while China’s latest retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports are as high as 125 percent. The Trump administration claims the levies attempt to punish China for unfair trade practices, including Chinese subsidies that hurt U.S. workers and the long-standing accusation that China pressures American companies to hand over their technology and intellectual property, as well as China’s role in illicit fentanyl trafficking. Some economists doubt, however, that Trump’s aggressive approach will achieve its desired goals and raise concerns that tariffs will drive up inflation and the costs of goods, hurting American consumers and exports. This paper attempts to examine the economic effects of the U.S.-China trade war. It first shows the economic effects of the U.S.-China trade war under the first Trump administration and then forecasts for the second Trump administration. II. Trade War between the U.S. and China As Figure 2 shows, the US trade deficit with China has increased as trade between both countries expanded. Therefore, the first Trump administration started the trade war by imposing higher tariffs on Chinese goods. Figure 2: US-China Goods Trade (2001-2024) Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 4 show U.S. and Chinese tariff rates for each other’s goods. As Figure 3-1 shows, the US tariffs on Chinese goods were less than 5 per cent when the first Trump administration began on January 20, 2018. Then the tariff continued to rise. As Figure 3-2 shows, the average US tariffs on China goods were 20.8 percent when the second Trump administration began on January 20, 2025. As Figure 4 shows, after the second Trump administration took office, US tariffs of 10 percent were imposed on all imports from China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) on February 1, 2025. Then the Trump administration increased tariffs on Chinese goods to 20 percent on March 3 and to 34 percent on April 2. US tariffs of 10 percent were imposed on nearly all countries under IEEPA, but with some sector carve-outs on April 5. China retaliated against US tariffs by increasing tariffs on U.S. products to 34 percent on April 4 and to 84 percent on April 10. US tariffs ranging from 1 percent to 74 percent were imposed on nearly all countries with a trade surplus with the US, including China (74 percent). US tariff on Chinese goods included an additional 50 percent tariff as counter-retaliation for China’s retaliation announcement on April 10. Then again China faced an additional 41 percent tariff increase under IEEPA (to 125 percent total). However, Trump instituted a broad 90-day pause on steep Liberation Day tariffs, aiming to give time for negotiators to work out new deals. But Trump has not provided a pause for China. In response, China has raised its duties on imports of US goods to 125 percent from 84 percent on April 12, while US tariffs on Chinese imports have increased to 145 percent by adding a 20 percent tariff in relation to the fentanyl. Figure 3-1: US–China tariff rates toward each other and the rest of the world (ROW) before 2025 Source: MacroMicro. https://en.macromicro.me/charts/130548/china-us-tariff-rates  Figure 3-2: US–China tariff rates toward each other and rest of world, 2018-2025  Figure 4: US–China tariff rates toward each other in 2025 Source: Reuters, April 11, 2025. III. Economic Effects of the Trade War between the U.S. and China A.  The first Trump administration Chad Bowen (2023) at the Peterson Institute for International Economics raised a question “was the trade war between U.S. and China worth it for US exporters”? And his answer so far is no. In the middle of the trade war, the United States and China signed a historic trade agreement on a ‘Phase One trade deal’ on January 15, 2020. Bowen supposes that in 2018–21, US goods exports to China of phase one products had grown at the same pace as China’s imports of those products from the world and that US services exports to China had grown at the rate of US services exports to the world. Cumulative US goods and services exports to China in 2018–21 were about 19 percent lower with the trade war and phase one agreement between the two countries (see Figure 5). His estimates suggest that the United States would have avoided export losses of $24 billion (16 percent) in 2018 and $30 billion (20 percent) in 2019 resulting from the trade war. Exports would also have been $27 billion (18 percent) higher in 2020 and $40 billion (23 percent) higher in 2021 than under phase one agreement.   Figure 5: US exports to China would be higher with no trade war. i. US manufacturing exports suffered in the trade war and did not recover. As Figure 6 shows, China purchased only 59 percent of the full commitment of US manufactured products in 2020–21 under Phase One trade deal. Manufacturing was the most economically significant part of the trade deal, making up 44 percent of covered US exports in 2017. Autos and aircraft dominated US exports before the trade war. Both did poorly during the period of 2020–2021. US auto exports reached only 39 percent of the target over 2020–21. The sector’s suffering is a trade war warning. In July 2018, Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports included auto parts; China’s tariff retaliation hit US car exports. US car exports decreased sharply in 2018, as car makers like Tesla and BMW reacted to the higher costs by moving production destined for the Chinese market out of the United States. (Ford, another major car exporter, including through its Lincoln brand, complained in 2018 that Trump’s separate steel and aluminum tariffs raised the cost of its US-based manufacturing by $1 billion.) Even when China lifted the retaliatory tariffs in early 2019, US exports did not recover. Sales of US aircraft, engines, and parts to China did even worse, reaching just 18 percent of the 2020–21 target. Though the industry was less directly impacted by trade war tariffs, US sales to China plummeted in 2019 after the two crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX. Between March 2019 and late 2020, the airplane model was grounded, with Boeing shutting down production in early 2020. China cancelled orders in April 2020, and though the legal text allows credit for aircraft “orders and deliveries”, additional orders had not been publicly announced by the end of 2021, despite complaints by the Biden administration that China's trade policy was holding back sales. (Exports of the 737 MAX might eventually resume, as Chinese regulators instructed airlines in December 2021 to implement the changes needed to allow the model to fly again in China.) Not all manufactured exports performed poorly during the period of 2020–21. Medical supplies needed to treat Covid-19 significantly increased. US exports of semiconductors and manufacturing equipment also boomed – thanks to a combination of stockpiling by Chinese companies as US export controls in 2019-20 threatened to cut off Chinese firms like SMIC and Huawei as well as increased demand for chips needed for consumer electronics and data servers brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic shift to remote work, schooling, and leisure.  Figure 6: US-China war battered hard US manufacturing exports to China ii.  US agricultural exports suffered in the trade war, received subsidies, and then recovered. To the Trump administration, agriculture was a very politically important part of the trade deal in 2020, despite accounting for only 14 percent of covered exports. As Figure 7-1 shows, when China's retaliatory tariffs hurt US farm exports during the period of 2018–19, the Trump administration awarded the sector tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies. In the days leading up to the 2020 presidential election, the Trump administration released a report that touted resuming farm sales to China—ignoring the continued troubles facing US manufacturing, energy, and service exports. US farm exports did get back to 2017 pre-trade war levels and ultimately reached 83 percent of the 2020–21 commitment under Phase One deal (see Figure 7-1 & 7-2).  Figure 7-1: US agricultural exports to China Soybeans made up approximately 60 percent of US agricultural exports to China in 2017. As Figure 7-2 shows, exports of US soybeans to China were devastated by the trade war, falling from $12 billion to $3 billion in 2018, because China imposed retaliatory tariffs. Though soybean exports managed to reach their pre-trade war levels during the period of 2020–21, they still fell over 30 percent short of their target under Phase One deal. Products like pork, corn, wheat, and sorghum exceeded expectations, though not necessarily because of the trade deal in January 2020. The outbreak of African swine fever led China to increase pork imports from the U.S. in 2019 before the deal was agreed. (In 2020–21, China's pigmeat imports from the rest of the world also averaged five times 2017 levels.) Wheat and corn imports increased after China began to comply with a 2019 WTO dispute settlement ruling against its unfilled tariff rate quotas. (Compared with 2017, China's imports from the rest of the world in 2020–21 were about 200 percent higher for wheat and 350 percent higher for corn.) Some farm exports also benefitted less from the Chinese purchase commitments under the trade deal in January 2020. Seafood and farm products did not rebound from the effects of the trade war. After being hit with Chinese tariffs, US lobster exports re-achieved about half of their target in 2020–21. US exports of raw hides and skins ended up at less than one-third (see Figure 7-2).  Figure 7-2: US agricultural exports to China (sub-category) iii. U.S. Imports from China: Total US imports from China were down with the beginning of the trade war. For 15 months beginning in July 2018, the Trump administration imposed higher tariffs on Chinese products. The Trump administration began the trade war by imposing tariffs of 25 percent on products covering roughly $34 billion of US imports from China in July 2018 (List 1) and on $16 billion of imports in August (List 2). When China retaliated against the U.S., the trade war continued with Trump imposing 10 percent tariffs on an additional $200 billion of imports in September 2018 (List 3), increasing the tariff rate of those duties to 25 percent in June 2019. In September 2019, Trump hit another $102 billion of imports (List 4A) with 15 percent tariffs, later reducing them to 7.5 percent upon implementation of the US-China Phase One trade agreement in February 2020. (The administration identified another set of products covering most of the rest of US imports from China of more than $160 billion—List 4B—for which it scheduled tariffs to take effect on December 15, 2019 but was cancelled on December 13, 2019.) As a result, as Figure 8-1 & 8-2 show, overall, the trade war reduced US imports from China. Then US imports recovered only slowly, starting in mid-2020. In January 2022, when the term of the first Trump administration ended, US imports from China (red line) remained well below the pre-trade war trend (dashed line), while US imports from the rest of the world (blue line) returned to pre-trade war levels of June 2018. China was the source of only 18 percent of total US goods imports in 2022, down from 22 percent at the beginning of the trade war.  Figure 8-1: Value of US goods imports from China and the rest of the world, 2016–2022 (June 2018 = 100)  Figure 8-2: Value of US imports from China and the rest of the world by trade war tariff list, 2018–2022 (June 2018 = 100) B.  The second Trump administration As of April 12, 2025, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods are 145 percent, but this tariff rate is not sustainable over a long period of time because it is way too high and because U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping want to negotiate. In fact, Trump signalled on April 23 that he would cut his 145 percent tariff on Chinese goods substantially. Therefore, it is not reasonable to explore the effects of Trump’s tariffs of 145 percent. Last year, McKibbin, Hogan, and Noland at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) examined the impact of now-President Trump’s proposed tariffs based on Trump’s campaign promises that would impose 60 percent additional tariffs on imports from China. They explored the impacts of a 60 percent additional tariff on China with and without other countries’ retaliating in kind by imposing steeper tariffs on imports from the United States. Figures 9 through 14 show the results from their analyses. Figure 9 shows that China experiences the most significant GDP losses (0.9% below baseline by 2026), while the U.S. also experiences a negative GDP growth rate (0.2% below baseline by 2027).  Figure 9: Projected change in real GDP of selected economies from an additional 60 percent increase in US tariffs on imports of goods from China, 2025-40 Figure 10 shows that the direct impact of the U.S. tariff of 60 percent on Chinese employment is initially negative (-2.25% in 2025), but a gradual decline in Chinese real wages eventually restores employment to the baseline after a decade. US employment will fall 0.23% below baseline by 2027.  Figure 10: Projected change in employment (hours worked) in selected economies from an additional 60 percent increase in US tariffs on imports of goods from China, 2025-40 Figure 11 shows that US inflation rises by 0.4% in 2025, with the higher cost of imports due to tariffs not offset by the stronger US dollar lowering prices of imports from other countries. The tariffs on US imports from China are mildly deflationary in other countries (see Figure 11).  Figure 11: Projected change in inflation in selected economies from an additional 60 percent increase in US tariffs on imports of goods from China, 2025-40 The slowdown in the Chinese economy causes capital to flow out of China and into other economies. This is initially a financial capital flow responding to a fall in financial rates of return in China and a rise in expected profits in countries like Canada and Mexico. That financial inflow becomes physical investment over time, which increases production capacity in these economies. Countries that receive the capital experience a trade deficit (see figure 12). This additional production enables the rise in exports to the US economy. While the US trade deficit with China shrinks, the overall US trade deficit increases (figure 12) as the partial relocation of production back into the US economy causes the dollar to appreciate.  Figure 12: Projected change in the trade balance of selected economies from an additional 60 percent increase in US tariffs on imports of goods from China, 2025-40 So far, figures have focused on the unilateral imposition of US tariffs on Chinese products. In figure 13, McKibbin, Hogan, and Noland compare projected changes in US GDP from the unilateral imposition of tariffs with a scenario where China retaliates by imposing a 60% tariff on US goods and services. By 2026, US GDP losses from Trump’s tariff policy more than double if China retaliates against the US (see Figure 13). The impact on US inflation in 2025 yields a similar result (see Figure 14). With Chinese retaliation, US inflation rises 0.7% above baseline compared with 0.4% without retaliation.  Figure 13: Projected change in US GDP from an additional 60 percent increase in US tariffs on imports of goods from China, with and without retaliation by China, 2025-40  Figure 14: Projected change in US inflation from an additional 60 percent increase in US tariffs on imports of goods from China, with and without retaliation by China, 2025-40 IV. Conclusion This paper showed that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods imposed by the first Trump administration mainly had negative impacts on U.S. exports, although they reduced U.S. imports from China over a short period of time. The analysis by McKibbin, Hogan, Noland (2024) for the second Trump administration also shows that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods will have negative impacts on US GDP, inflation, employment, and trade balance. This paper also showed that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods will have larger negative impacts on U.S. GDP and inflation if China retaliates. Then a question arises: “Why does Trump attempt to impose extremely high tariffs on products from China?” Larisa Kapustina,  Ľudmila Lipková, Yakov Silin and Andrei Drevalev (2020) identify four main reasons that led the U.S. to the greatest trade war between the U.S. and China: a) to reduce the U.S. deficit of bilateral trade and increase the number of U.S. jobs; b) to limit access of Chinese companies to American technologies and prevent digital modernisation of the industry in China; c) to prevent the growth of China’s military strength; and d) to reduce the U.S. federal budget deficit. References Bown, Chad, “China bought none of the extra $200 billion of US exports in Trump's trade deal.” Peterson Institute for International Economics, Working Paper. July 19, 2022.Bown, Chad, “Four years into the trade war, are the US and China decoupling?” Peterson Institute for International Economics, Working Paper. October 20, 2022.Bown, Chad, “US imports from China are both decoupling and reaching new highs. Here's how.” Peterson Institute for International Economics, Working Paper. March 31, 2023. Kapustina, Larisa, Ľudmila Lipková, Yakov Silin and Andrei Drevalev, “US-China Trade War: Causes and Consequences.” SHS Web Conference. Volume 73, 2020: 1-13.McKibbin, W., M. Hogan and M. Noland (2024), “The International Economic Implications of a Second Trump Presidency.” Peterson Institute for International Economics, Working Paper 24-20.