Tariffs in large trade relations — such as U.S.–China or India–EU — are less about numbers on paper and more about power, priorities, and politics.

In the case of the U.S. and China, tariffs were the focal point of their trade tensions. The U.S. employed them to resist what it perceived as unfair practices — such as subsidies for Chinese businesses or intellectual property issues. China then retaliated with tariffs of their own. The outcome? Consumer staples, from electronics to soybeans, were thrust overnight into status as bargaining tools in a high-stakes game. To this day, numerous tariffs still linger, influencing how businesses establish supply chains and where consumers perceive price increases.

For India and the EU, tariffs have a different tale. India tends to use tariffs to shield its farmers and small industries, whereas the EU demands more open entry to India’s huge market. This tug-of-war generates tension but also compels bargaining. For instance, tariffs on crops or luxury products tend to feature in negotiations, demonstrating both sides’ priorities — India’s necessity to protect neighborhood livelihoods and the EU’s drive for free trade.

Thus, tariffs in these contexts are not merely about money. They’re about negotiating power. They are both shields and bargaining tools, pushing countries toward agreements that weigh protection at home against opportunity abroad.

In short: tariffs in these relationships are chess moves — defensive sometimes, aggressive others, but always influencing the next round of negotiations.