The rise of the Global South, fuelled by Trump's missteps

WHEN Donald Trump returned to the White House for his second term, the world braced for a more aggressive and unpredictable chapter of US foreign policy. His push for “fairer trade” and demands for other nations to pay more for access to the American market were not entirely without economic merit, as I argued in this column several months ago.

What is now becoming undeniable is how Trump’s inability to separate his personal ambition from national strategy is undoing whatever progress the United States had made in recalibrating global trade.

In the weeks following Trump’s inauguration on Jan 20, foreign leaders were scrambling to schedule meetings with him, eager to build bridges and engender personal goodwill as he acted on his many campaign promises, which were going to upend the way the world does business.

On April 2, he proceeded with his tariffs, which he called “Liberation Day”.

Trump announced that he was imposing reciprocal tariffs on many countries. This led to a global scramble. Eventually, a pause came into effect to give time for trade deals to offset the tariff threats.

However, China reacted differently and said it would match any tariff imposed by the United States.

Tariffs between the two countries went up to 145% but eventually, Trump blinked – not because of diplomacy, but due to America’s own market fears – bringing some reprieve.

Trump's threats of tariffs on Chinese goods spooked the US bond market, with yields tumbling and investors signalling alarm. A full-scale tariff war with China risked triggering a global financial shock, and the administration was forced to walk back some of its harshest measures.

Beijing played its cards well, keeping negotiations slow while letting Wall Street do the talking.

But the story with India played out in a far more dramatic and damaging fashion.

The story is very different for India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had initially enjoyed a warm relationship with Trump. He was the second foreign leader to visit the White House after Trump’s second inauguration, and both men went out of their way to project camaraderie, underscoring what many have called the defining partnership of the 21st century.

Just months later, that entire edifice came crashing down over a single phone call and a delusional pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize.

According to a recent report in The New York Times, a June 17 phone call between the two leaders was the breaking point. Trump, in his characteristic style, boasted that he had ended hostilities between India and Pakistan after the deadly Operation Sindoor, launched by India following a terrorist attack in Pahalgam.

He went further, claiming that Pakistan planned to nominate him for the Nobel Prize and strongly implied that Modi should follow suit.

Modi pushed back immediately and firmly. He made it clear that the ceasefire was negotiated directly between New Delhi and Islamabad, and that India had never accepted – and would never accept – foreign mediation on issues concerning its sovereignty.

What could have remained a private disagreement spiraled into a full-blown diplomatic rupture.

Trump's pride was wounded. Within weeks, he announced a 25% reciprocal tariff on Indian goods. Then came another 25% punitive tariff, this time justified on the grounds of India’s continued import of Russian oil.

The result was devastating. A 50% tariff hit core Indian export sectors – textiles, gems and jewellery, leather, and shrimp, among others.

US officials claimed the measures were tied to broader strategic objectives, but analysts quoted in the Times saw it differently.

They viewed it as targeted retaliation, rooted not in trade policy but in personal affront because China, which purchases more Russian oil, was spared from any “punitive” tariff.

The consequences extended beyond economics. Trade talks froze. Trump reportedly attempted to reach Modi multiple times, but New Delhi refused to engage. Indian officials feared Trump might misrepresent agreements on his social media platform, as he had done in the past.

Visas for Indian students and H-1B workers became harder to secure. Deportations of undocumented Indians accelerated.

One Indian official described it as “gundagardi” – bullying, plain and simple.

Then came the strategic unravelling. Trump intimated via third parties that he would not be attending the Quad Summit in New Delhi this October, even though he would be in the region for the Asean Summit in Kuala Lumpur.

The Quad, comprising the United States, India, Japan and Australia, was designed to be the core of a strategic Indo-Pacific framework to balance China’s growing influence. Its collapse, or at least the absence of the U President, is a symbolic and substantive blow.

The Indo-Pacific strategy was supposed to be America’s great pivot. Instead, Trump's ego has turned it into an afterthought.

Meanwhile, President Xi Jinping wasted no time. The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Tianjin became a stage to showcase China’s emerging leadership in the Global South.

Xi extended Modi an offer of strategic cooperation.

From investment in critical infrastructure to trade rebalancing and even the sensitive border issue, Xi struck a conciliatory tone.

He advised that the border dispute should not be the sole determinant of Sino-Indian relations, a significant shift in China's public posture.

Xi's timing was impeccable, and the optics could not have been clearer. The United States’ loss was China’s opportunity.

Modi, however, must tread carefully. The opposition, led by Rahul Gandhi, has been quick to exploit the situation. Gandhi has accused Modi of ceding territory to China, allegations that remain unsubstantiated.

He also claimed that Modi had allowed Trump to dictate the terms of a ceasefire, asserting, incorrectly, that this would secure favourable tariff treatment.

The reality is that Modi’s refusal to bend to Trump’s political theatre has strengthened his domestic image. Indians, shaped by a long history of foreign bullying, responded positively to a leader who stood firm.

The broader picture is this: Trump’s erratic trade policies, driven by personal vendettas and political self-glorification, have inadvertently fuelled the rise of a new counterweight to US hegemony.

Xi, Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Brazilian President Lula da Silva have become central figures in an emerging multipolar order. Their positions differ on many fronts, but one thing unites them: a refusal to bow to Trump’s strong-arm tactics.

While Europe continues to fall at Trump’s feet, the Global South is asserting itself.

After the SCO summit, Trump will find himself increasingly isolated as the limits of America’s economic leverage come into stark relief.

Modi stands firm, refusing to concede on the punitive 50% tariffs, signalling that India would not trade its sovereignty or pride for economic relief.

Xi, sensing both opportunity and weakness, declined to commit to a meeting with Trump despite the US leader saying many times he would like a four-eyed meeting.

President Putin rebuffed Trump’s push for a follow-up with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after the underwhelming and poorly received Ukraine Peace Summit held in Alaska.

The message from these leaders seems to be very clear: Trump’s transactional diplomacy no longer commands automatic deference. Every power has its limits.

As for Malaysia, it is a story of quiet vindication. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was criticised earlier this year for not securing an immediate meeting with Trump. But instead of chasing headlines,

Anwar focused on a steady diplomatic course. After seven months, he did speak to Trump by phone, and the President confirmed he would attend the Asean Summit in Kuala Lumpur.

Even before that call, Anwar made it clear that Malaysia would not choose sides in a divided world. He emphasised that Malaysia would work with all partners – including China, India, Russia and the United States – based on mutual respect and national interest.

Anwar’s approach now looks prescient. In a world shaken by Trump’s unpredictability, Malaysia’s insistence on strategic autonomy and balanced diplomacy stands as a model. As the Global South finds its footing and begins to assert itself, it is not just military might or market size that matters, but clarity, consistency and sovereignty.

Trump may have set out to reassert American primacy, but what he has triggered instead is the rise of a multipolar world that no longer kowtows to Washington.