Letters | 20th century measures won’t address 21st century trade insecurities

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at letters@scmp.com or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words.

As president of the European Youth Think Tank, a non-profit organisation that brings together interdisciplinary researchers working on economics, innovation and international affairs, I read with great interest your article, “China, EU slam proposed US tariffs, reject forced labour allegations” (June 4).

The debate surrounding the proposed tariffs highlights a broader issue that often receives too little attention. Discussions about trade policy still tend to focus primarily on manufactured goods, as if the global economy were still operating under the same logic that shaped international trade decades ago. Yet today’s economy looks very different.

Tariffs are designed to affect physical products: cars, steel, electronics, machinery and other manufactured goods. They can influence trade flows and alter supply chains. However, they are far less effective when it comes to digital services, online platforms, software, artificial intelligence, cloud computing and financial activities.

This distinction matters because an increasing share of economic value is now generated in sectors that are largely intangible.

The United States offers perhaps the clearest example. Many of the world’s most influential companies operate not in traditional manufacturing, but in digital services, technology platforms, data management and software. Their global reach is difficult to measure in conventional trade statistics and even harder to influence through traditional tariff instruments.

For this reason, viewing international competition primarily through the lens of tariffs risks overlooking some of the most important transformations taking place in the global economy. While public attention often focuses on containers, factories and trade balances, a growing share of economic competition is taking place through data, intellectual property, financial markets, digital infrastructure and technological ecosystems.

The same applies to economic interdependence. Today’s global economy is connected not only through supply chains but also through finance, technology and digital networks. Even when governments attempt to reduce dependencies in one area, other forms of interconnection often remain. In many cases, market adjustments and financial flows can partially offset the effects of trade restrictions.

Of course, concerns about economic security are valid. In recent years, we have seen the risks associated with excessive dependence on foreign suppliers in strategic sectors. But solutions cannot rely exclusively on tools designed for a predominantly industrial economy.

The real challenge for the US, China and Europe is not simply how to restrict trade. It is how to manage strategic dependencies in a world where goods, services, technology, data and finance are increasingly intertwined.

In such an environment, long-term competitiveness will depend less on the ability to impose barriers and more on the ability to innovate, attract talent, develop new technologies and maintain leadership in high-value sectors.

Luigi Capoani, founder and president, European Youth Think Tank

India must display neighbourliness in deeds

Recent events have highlighted a recurring challenge in India’s relations with its neighbours: the gap between diplomatic rhetoric and political practice.

During a recent visit to Bangladesh, Indian High Commissioner Dinesh Trivedi spoke warmly of the ties between the two countries, describing them as sharing “the same sky, the same air, the same pain”. Such language reflects the aspirations behind New Delhi’s much-publicised “Neighbourhood First” policy and its desire to project itself as a constructive regional partner.

Yet reports that a senior Bangladeshi government adviser Dr Zahed Ur Rahman was denied entry into India at Delhi airport have raised uncomfortable questions in Dhaka about whether India’s actions consistently reflect its stated commitment to mutual respect and partnership.

The issue goes beyond a single travel incident. It touches on a broader concern increasingly voiced across South Asia: whether India is fully comfortable with neighbours pursuing foreign policies that are not always aligned with New Delhi’s strategic preferences.

For Bangladesh, the concern is amplified by ongoing tensions along the border. Allegations of periodic push-ins, disputed border management practices and incidents involving civilians continue to generate public resentment and undermine trust, regardless of the explanations offered by either side. Such developments often receive less international attention than high-level diplomatic exchanges, yet they have a profound impact on public perceptions.

India remains the region’s largest power and an indispensable partner for Bangladesh. The two countries share deep economic, cultural and security interests. However, regional leadership in the 21st century cannot rest on size alone. It requires consistency, transparency and respect for the sovereignty of neighbouring states.

South Asia is changing rapidly. Countries such as Bangladesh are pursuing more diversified foreign policies and broader economic partnerships. This is not a rejection of India but a reflection of a multipolar world in which smaller states increasingly seek strategic flexibility.

If India wishes to maintain long-term influence and goodwill, it must ensure that its actions reinforce rather than contradict its diplomatic messaging. Warm words about shared aspirations are welcome, but trust is ultimately built through everyday conduct at airports and border crossings, and through the treatment of neighbouring nations as equal partners.

Shahidul Alam Swapan, Geneva, Switzerland

Tokyo gets pragmatic with outreach to the Kremlin

I refer to the article, “Why Japan’s Russia outreach could fuel G7 concern over unity: ‘bad signal’” (June 13).

As a Russian, I was surprised to read about the minimalist trend in Japan where residents throw away anything untouched for six months. Unfortunately, Tokyo cannot simply throw away its structural dependence on Russian energy. The household appliances and vehicles central to Japanese life rely on the very resources targeted by anti-Kremlin sanctions.

This creates a profound dilemma for Tokyo as it aligns with the Group of Seven. Due to its island geography, Japan lacks the river networks required to build massive hydroelectric stations and is geographically isolated from resource-wealthy Western allies. That makes Japan’s economy uniquely vulnerable.

The situation brings to mind the saying: “While the fat man slims, the lean man dies.” As global energy markets constrict, those without deep domestic resources will suffer the most.

Mergen Mongush, Moscow