Summary
Objective analysis of the current dynamics of globalisation and geopolitics vis-à-vis the enduring rivalry especially between China and the United States, both economic and military superpowers, establishes the hypothesis that indeed nature abhors a vacuum on three key foundations.

First, the United States upon the agency and ideological stance of America First doctrines, has willingly or otherwise shrunk its moral authority as the champion of the free world, trade liberalisation and liberty.

Second, the United States imposition of global “reciprocal tariffs” the intended consequence of which is to fracture “unfair” global supply chains and boost U.S. economic growth has had the unintended consequence of advancing innovation, new partnerships and markets by rivals.

Third, the radical volatilities, complexities, and uncertainties of America First doctrines have oftentimes jinxed effective strategic planning and consensus building, both necessary ingredients in the global order, by U.S. allies and rivals alike; with the unintended consequence of Chinese symbolic moral leadership in global affairs.

This treatise examines the issues closely and how it potentially impacts globalisation in coming years.

Analysis
To be crystal clear, the injunction of sovereign autonomy from a constitutional and geopolitical standpoint is that each country ordinarily acts in its own overriding best interests within the strict frontiers of established legal principles; and extraordinarily, outside the established boundaries of legal principles.

The latter point is demonstrated by three examples. First, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, is a gross violation of Article 2 (4) of the 1945 United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any sovereign state.

Second, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 breached Article (2) 4 of the UN Charter because it lacked a definitive and explicit legal basis in international law. Third, relates to the Israeli attack on Entebbe, Uganda, in July 3-4, 1976, to rescue its citizens held as hostages by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the German Revolutionary Cells seeking the release of Palestinians held in Israeli jails and beyond.

Incidentally, one of the Israeli casualties of the raid was Yonatan “Yoni” Netanyahu, an Israeli military officer and brother of the current Israeli leader, Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, who, till this day, 49 years later, is waging war against Palestinian Hamas; a phenomenon which speaks to the necessity for a pragmatic and just diplomatic solution to the decades old Israeli/Palestinian conflict!

Whilst the raid plainly violated Article 2 (4) supra, however, Israeli justified it upon the basis of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which establishes that nothing impairs the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a sovereign state. As such, countries act in their overriding self-interests according to their own subjective definitions thereof. As a philosophical construction therefore, it inescapably follows that there is nothing inherently wrong with America First doctrines.

The serious contest however, is that America First cannot meaningfully subsist outside established legal orthodoxies like the 1789 U.S. Constitution, primary and delegated legislation, international law, and the objective execution of the rule of law. Because, the United States is part of an interconnected and interdependent global order plus, it has historically been at the vanguard of democracy, freedom, justice, and liberty.

Be that as it may, the proposition is by no means utopian because it recognises that the unique configuration of the ultimate arbiters of the interpretation of laws in the United States, the Supreme Court Justices, are all political appointments with conservative and liberal ideological leanings.

It just so happens that the extant configuration is made of nine Supreme Court justices (six conservative and three liberal) and of the six conservative appointees, three were personally nominated and appointed by the conservative President Trump viz: Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanuagh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

So, how has the United States upon the agency and ideological stance of America First doctrines, willingly or otherwise, shrunk its moral authority, or risked doing so, as the champion of the free world, liberalisation and liberty, created a global leadership vacuum which China warts and all, has either filled or is filling to all intents and purposes?

The poser raises interesting issues which engage seminal constitutional and legal principles. These include but are not limited to the complexities and penetrative reach of executive powers; the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary; whether executive powers without more, override the constitutionally established independence of public institutions and appointees thereof in the absence of legally proven malfeasance; whether the material fact of trilateral unification of democratic power established by election to the position of President by popular vote, the democratic control of Congress by that incumbent’s party and the appointment of the majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court, by that incumbent equates to ultimate or quasi-ultimate power.

A review of some far-reaching America First policies affords fascinating insights relative to trade, defence, and migration. Primary, is the global “reciprocal” tariffs regime launched in April 2025, with a baseline rate of 10 per cent on virtually all imports to the United States. The explicit policy intention is to boost U.S. led economic growth and tackle alleged trade imbalances.

The unstated policy intentions from a geopolitical standpoint, seek to stymie the Chinese economy, its closest economic competitor, which is outperforming the U.S. economy, applying GDP Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) metrics, a more nuanced model that bald GDP measures; by repositioning United States as the world’s leading economic superpower.

Contextually since 2014, China has had the largest economy globally and in 2025 China’s GDP (PPP) is estimated at $40.72 trillion, whilst the U.S. GDP (PPP) in 2025 is estimated at $30.51 trillion (IMF, 2025).

The unintended consequences have fragmented global supply chains, triggered retaliatory tariffs and heightened market instability. Thus, over the past couple of months the U.S. and China have imposed retaliatory tariffs reaching 125 per cent respectively, and subsequently recalibrated them.

As at September 2025, the U.S. imposed a 25 per cent tariff on a variety of Chinese electronics and machinery; 22 per cent tariffs on Chinese goods linked to fentanyl manufacture and supply chains as well as a 50 per cent tariff on the latter country’s semi-completed copper goods.

Retaliating, China imposed an initial general tariff of 125 per cent on U.S. goods, which has since been renegotiated downwards. Even so, China’s 10 per cent to 15 per cent agricultural tariffs, 15 per cent-25 per cent tariffs on U.S. steel and aluminium, export bans on rare earths and critical minerals, and other import restrictions on U.S. logs and soya beans, remain firmly in place. Equally, China has included U.S. defence and technology firms in its Unreliable Entity List. Expectedly, these dynamics continue to exactingly test U.S./China diplomatic relations.

America First policies have also adversely impacted India which faces U.S. 25 per cent tariffs over its purchase of Russian petroleum products. In other words, current U.S. foreign policy vicariously punishes India, an independent country, through trade sanctions for exercising its sovereign autonomy by trading with Russia, given U.S. support for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

South Africa has been targeted with 30 per cent tariffs by the U.S., which is partly due to South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice filed on December 29, 2023 against U.S. staunch ally, Israel, for committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza in gross violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention (Ndoro, February8, 2025 iharare.com).

On its part, Brazil is facing crippling 50 per cent U.S. tariffs on some goods due to the country’s prosecution of President Trump’s staunch ally and former leader, Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup. Brazilian leader Lula da Silva has opined that “Donald Trump was elected to govern the United States, not to rule the world.”

The evidence plainly demonstrates that America First and the country’s strategic interests are being utilised as a policy instrument to enforce America’s will against sovereign countries. Is all this sustainable and if so, for how long? Already, the tariffs have adversely impacted investor confidence with the S&P 500 shedding $5 trillion in market value through April 2 – 4, 2025, and in May 27, 2025, JP Morgan predicted a 40 per cent risk of global recession as a direct consequence of America First global tariffs amidst concerns over trade wars and market volatilities.

Equally important, is defence. U.S. military hegemony and pre-eminence is scarcely in doubt. According to the 2025 Global Firepower Index, the U.S. boasts unmatched highly sophisticated defence cyberwarfare and technological capabilities, has over 750 military bases strategically positioned globally which enables the country to project power at relative short notice, vast offensive and defensive nuclear weapons capabilities.

The country has the largest defence budget globally circa $895 billion and the U.S. Air Force is the most advanced globally – with more than 13, 000 aircraft including fighter jets, bombers and transport planes. The projection of that power was evident in the 2025 Iran/Israel war when the U.S., defended Israel, and unilaterally launched aerial attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025 in “Operation Midnight”, violating Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter.

That said, the U.S. military pre-eminence is not the same thing as the absence of robust competitors in the defence, force projection and geostrategic realms. Afterall, if defensive and offensive nuclear capabilities constitute criteria for determining military rivalry against the U.S., then it would be politically naïve in the extreme to ignore its formidable competitors especially China and Russia; and to a much lesser degree India and Pakistan.

In other words, America’s overwhelming defence capabilities, force projection at a short notice when its interests and those of its allies are threatened puts rivals on their guard. Yes, but is it really that simple? No, it isn’t because nature abhors a vacuum. A point eloquently reinforced at the 25th Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit, held in Tianjin, China, through August 31 and September 1, 2025.

The Summit, attended by 20 global leaders from China, Russia, India, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Laos, Belarus, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, ASEAN Secretary-General Kao Him Hourn and others, was and is significant because it demonstrates a geostrategic shift away from a U.S./Western-led unipolar to a multipolar global governance orthodoxy.

To be continued next week.

Ojumu is the Principal Partner at Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners and strategy consultants in Lagos, Nigeria, best-selling author of The Dynamic Intersections of Economics, Foreign Relations, Jurisprudence and National Development (2023).