Trump’s Pressure: A New Global Divide-and-Conquer?

The foreign policy approach of Donald Trump, though no longer officially commanding the White House, is once again echoing through global diplomacy. His latest economic pressure strategy draws striking similarities to a previous maneuver in the Middle East—when he successfully pushed several Arab nations to normalize ties with Israel. While presented as a move toward peace, that effort instead deepened regional divides and gave the impression that Arab recognition equated to endorsement of Israel’s actions in Gaza, including what many view as genocide.

Today, Trump and his allies are reportedly working behind the scenes to pressure more than 70 countries into distancing themselves from China. The incentive? Reduced tariffs from the U.S. in exchange for restricting trade, shipping routes, and industrial cooperation with Beijing. Once again, the strategy appears to pit friendly nations against one another in a classic divide-and-rule fashion, this time in the realm of global trade.

The question now is whether the world is being led into another Cold War-style confrontation, this time not along ideological lines, but driven by economic self-interest and political dominance. Trump appears determined to construct a new global bloc—not based on shared values, but on coercion and transactional diplomacy.

The BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—are now at the center of this unfolding dynamic. As an emerging power group that seeks to rebalance global influence away from the West, BRICS faces a crucial test. Can they withstand Washington’s economic pressure and continue advocating for a multipolar world order?

Some countries are already feeling the heat. India, for example, is a strategic partner of the U.S. in defense and technology, yet also a BRICS member and China’s regional rival. Brazil, meanwhile, seeks infrastructure investments from both Beijing and Washington. These dual interests create a delicate balancing act that could fracture under sustained U.S. pressure.

Russia and China, of course, have openly rejected American demands. But the true test lies with the more ambivalent members of BRICS, who must now decide whether to protect their long-term strategic autonomy or accept short-term economic incentives offered by Trump’s team.

The echoes of Trump’s Middle East strategy are hard to ignore. His administration successfully divided the Arab world into camps: those recognizing Israel and those opposing it. Rather than bring peace, this sowed distrust and further isolated Palestine. Today, a similar blueprint is being drawn—this time targeting trade alliances rather than political recognition.

More than an economic strategy, this new campaign reflects a deeper geopolitical manipulation: promising financial rewards to countries willing to abandon long-standing relationships. It challenges not just diplomatic norms, but also the sovereignty of nations navigating complex foreign policy paths.

Countries with established ties to China, particularly in Asia and Africa, cannot simply flip allegiances without significant political and economic consequences. These regions understand that a sustainable global order requires balance, not alignment by coercion.

For many developing nations, the real risk lies in trading one dependency for another. Rejecting cheap Chinese goods or infrastructure loans might win favor with Washington, but it could expose them to another form of economic subjugation, this time through American leverage.

Indonesia offers a compelling case study. As a major player in the Indo-Pacific, it maintains strong relations with both the U.S. and China. Succumbing to pressure from one side risks not only economic retaliation but also undermines its regional leadership role.

Trump’s strategy also comes amid ongoing humanitarian crises, most notably in Gaza. Arab nations that normalized ties with Israel now face criticism for allegedly legitimizing its military actions. A similar dynamic could emerge if countries are seen as complicit in isolating China, especially as tensions rise in Taiwan, the South China Sea, and global supply chains.

What we are witnessing may be the second act of Trump’s global divide-and-conquer approach—this time repackaged through trade instead of diplomacy. And just like before, the fallout could leave smaller nations caught in the middle.

The world needs bridges, not battle lines. It requires partnerships rooted in mutual respect and shared growth—not ones built on ultimatums or fear. Middle powers like Indonesia, India, Brazil, and South Africa have a unique chance to push back against false binaries.

If not, we risk repeating a familiar tragedy: great powers playing chess while smaller nations become disposable pawns on the board. The illusion of choice masks the coercion behind it.

Ultimately, resisting Trump’s pressure campaign is not about siding with China, but about defending a nation’s right to chart its own course. The future of global diplomacy depends on the courage to say no—not just to Washington or Beijing, but to all who seek to divide the world for their own gain.