Global trade has entered a new phase. For decades, international rules and agreements provided stability. Today, that foundation is fading. Uncertainty is no longer a side effect of politics but a deliberate tool. Governments use ambiguity to test reactions, protect domestic markets, and strengthen their bargaining power. This “strategic uncertainty” is now more damaging than tariffs or duties, because it undermines what businesses and countries need most – the ability to plan ahead.
Trade used to evolve within a predictable framework. Multilateral and regional agreements acted as stabilizers. Crises brought turbulence, but only for a time. Now, uncertainty itself has become systemic.
The drivers are clear:
• Industrial competition. Countries fight for access to critical raw materials and advanced technologies.
• Trade imbalances. More governments demand corrective measures to defend their markets.
• Political and environmental goals. Trade is used not just for economics, but also to secure jobs, pursue climate targets, or put pressure on rivals.
The result is a world where predictability is disappearing, and strategic uncertainty becomes the new normal.
Tariffs increase costs, but companies can adapt. They reconfigure supply chains, renegotiate contracts, or pass costs on to consumers. Uncertainty is different – it blocks planning altogether.
Firms are forced to:
• build excess inventories;
• constantly change shipping routes;
• postpone long-term investments.
Large corporations can handle this to some extent. For small firms and poorer countries, it is devastating. They lack access to cheap credit, spare capital, or flexible logistics.
Trade uncertainty quickly spills over into finance.
• Currencies. Markets react instantly, with exchange rates swinging on rumors of new measures.
• Capital flows. Investors pull back from unpredictable economies.
• Credit. Banks price in higher risk, making borrowing more expensive.
The knock-on effects are higher inflation, persistently high interest rates, and shrinking fiscal space for many governments.
Perhaps the most damaging consequence is the loss of trust.
When rules are applied selectively and measures imposed without consultation, partners lose faith in the system. Retaliation follows, feeding a cycle of unpredictability.
International trade risks losing its core function: to provide stability and predictability for growth.
As the world’s largest importer, the United States sets the tone for global commerce. Any policy change quickly reshapes supply chains worldwide.
In 2025, this dynamic became clear. Importers rushed to stockpile goods in early Q1 ahead of new tariffs, driving shipments up, particularly by air. But once tariffs took effect, imports dropped sharply.
• Developed economies managed to adjust, thanks to stronger resources and logistics.
• Developing economies experienced greater volatility.
• Least developed countries were hit hardest, with exports collapsing after a short delay.
For the poorest nations, the impact came later – but when it did, the shock was deeper.
The least developed countries face unique structural limits:
• short-term contracts;
• limited industrial capacity;
• weak infrastructure;
• almost no access to credit.
They cannot ramp up exports ahead of tariff deadlines. They cannot shift to costly air freight. They cannot borrow to cushion shocks.
For them, strategic uncertainty is not just a challenge – it is a direct blow. Exports fall, investment leaves, and participation in global trade shrinks.
U.S. trade measures do not only affect suppliers. They ripple through entire production chains: raw material producers, assembly plants, and end markets all feel the squeeze.
Supply chains became more resilient after the pandemic, but political uncertainty still destabilizes them. Retaliatory actions by other governments only amplify the risks.
Not all companies are equally exposed.
• Large corporations build stockpiles, diversify markets, and switch to more expensive shipping.
• Smaller firms simply cannot.
China offers a clear example of adaptation. When exports to the U.S. fell in 2025, Chinese firms increased shipments to other regions. Diversification helped offset losses and maintain overall export growth.
Regional and bilateral trade agreements remain critical. They provide rules and mechanisms for dispute resolution.
History shows that trade under such agreements is less volatile. Yet even agreements are not full shields. The U.S.–Mexico–Canada zone demonstrates this: if the biggest player acts unilaterally, the entire framework shakes.
Still, firms inside agreements are more likely to invest long-term, even in times of global turbulence.
Experts highlight several steps to restore predictability:
1. Announce measures in advance.
2. Base decisions on transparent, data-driven analysis.
3. Strengthen coordination through international institutions.
4. Reinforce commitments under trade agreements.
5. Diversify export markets.
These steps cannot remove uncertainty entirely, but they can limit the damage. Trade policy is no longer just a technical economic instrument. It has become a weapon of geopolitics. Strategic uncertainty erodes trust, undermines investment, and hits the most vulnerable – the least developed countries – the hardest. For businesses and governments, resilience is the only answer: diversify markets, build buffers, and strengthen agreements. The global economy faces a choice: rebuild transparency and rules, or accept strategic uncertainty as the new normal.
Alen Serik, expert of the portal EconomyKZ.org
