Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском I. Introduction  We are only two and a half months into the new Trump administration. However, President Donald Trump's long-threatened tariffs have plunged the country into a trade war abroad. On-again, off-again, new tariffs continue to escalate uncertainty around the world. Trump already launched a trade war during his first term in office, but he has more sweeping tariff plans right now. The second Trump administration has embarked on a new and more aggressive tariff policy, citing various economic and national security concerns. His administration has proposed, imposed, suspended, revoked, and then reimposed various new tariffs. It could be difficult for average citizens to keep up with all the proposals. As of March 19, 2025, there are ten proposed or active tariff initiatives. They range from broad-based tariffs that cover all goods from a certain country (China, Mexico, Canada) to tariffs that cover certain types of goods (aluminum & steel), promises of future tariffs (copper, lumber, automotive, semiconductor, and pharmaceutical), and promised retaliatory tariffs (European wine and other alcoholic beverages). Moreover, although we have seen more tariff announcements in the first two months of the second Trump administration than in the entire first Trump administration, "fair and reciprocal" tariff rollout will overpower the tariffs imposed until today. The ten tariff initiatives that are proposed or in play are as follows in Table 1.   This paper aims to evaluate economic impacts of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. It first explains the effects of tariffs imposed by the first Trump administration and then forecasts the impacts of the second Trump administration's tariffs.  II. Literature on Tariff Effects A tariff is a type of tax that a government adds to imported goods. Companies importing goods pay the tariff to the government. If any part of a product arrives with a tariff, whether it is an imported avocado or a car built locally with imported steel, its cost is part of the price everyday consumers pay before sales tax.  Economists reject tariffs as an effective tool to improve the welfare of U.S. citizens or strengthen key industries. In a survey conducted during the first Trump administration, 93 % of economic experts did not agree that targeted tariffs on aluminium and steel would improve Americans' welfare. Recent research has strengthened economists' opposition to this policy instrument. Numerous studies demonstrate that American consumers entirely bear the burden of tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration, with disproportionately large impacts on lower-income U.S. households. A framework for analysing the impact of higher import tariffs on the economy is provided by Mundell and Fleming. Mundell (1961) claimed that the country that raised tariffs on imported products may benefit because more people choose domestically produced products over imported ones. Protection from foreign competition could also benefit domestic industries. Large countries can also benefit from improved terms of trade. However, increased tariffs on imported products are assumed to lead to an increase in the current account balance by increasing savings relative to investment. Higher savings dampen aggregate demand. The situation of households deteriorates because of rising consumer prices. Domestic industries are also negatively affected by lower household demand and the need to pay more for imported input products.  Over the years, Mundell and Fleming's model has been developed further by other scholars such as Eichengreen (1981), Krugman (1982), Obstfeld and Rogoff (1995) and Eichengreen (2018). Overall, the theoretical literature demonstrates that higher import tariffs could affect the economy through various channels. The impacts of tariffs on the economy differ between a nation imposing the tariffs and nations exporting to the nation raising the tariffs. However, nations that are not subject to the increased import duties are also affected. Main effects of higher tariffs are as follows: Higher inflation: Higher import tariffs lead to higher prices for imported products. Depending on which tariffs are increased, this could lead to higher prices for both consumers and companies. Domestic firms may also raise their prices because of reduced competition from foreign companies (Cavallo et al. (2021)).  Higher consumer prices lead to a decline in real disposable household income, which hampers private consumption. Higher business costs have impacts on companies' profits, which in turn dampen employment and companies' willingness to invest. Companies are also more likely to pass on some of their higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices. The rise in imported prices might be smaller in large countries, as they are more able to influence the world price of products. Increased consumption of other products: Higher imported prices can lead companies and consumers to increasingly buy cheaper domestic products. But it can also lead to increased imports of products from countries not subject to higher import tariffs.  Domestic industries are protected: Higher import tariffs improve the competitive position of domestic companies. These benefits can lead to increased investment, production, and employment in protected industries. However, the longer-term effect of protecting some domestic industries from foreign competition can be negative, as it might reduce incentives to improve production efficiency, thereby dampening productivity and GDP.  Decreased trade: Increased tariffs usually lead to reduced trade. This can lead to reduced knowledge transfer between nations in the form of less direct investment, reduced technology transfer, and reduced access to skilled labour. These factors in turn can lead to companies moving further away from the technological frontier, thereby hampering productivity (Dornbusch (1992) and Frankel and Romer (1999)).  Stronger exchange rate: When demand changes from foreign to domestic production, the exchange rate tends to rise to balance it out. One reason is that higher inflation often leads to higher interest rates relative to other nations. The nominal exchange rate might appreciate if imports decline significantly and demand for foreign currency drops. An appreciation of the exchange rate hampers exports but keeps imports cheaper.  Global value chains: Higher tariffs can lead to disruptions in global value chains by making imported inputs from abroad pricier. If firms are part of global value chains, higher costs for firms facing higher import costs may also lead to higher costs for domestic firms further down the production chain.  Uncertainty and confidence: Higher import tariffs may increase uncertainty about future trade policy and lead to increased pessimism among households and companies. Such uncertainty may hamper household consumption and business investment (Boer and Rieth (2024)).  III. Tariffs under the first Trump administration The first Trump administration's tariffs involved protectionist trade initiatives against other nations, notably China.  In January 2018, the Trump administration-imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines of 30–50%. In March 2018, the administration-imposed tariffs on aluminium (10%) and steel (25%), which are imported from most countries. In June 2018, the Administration expanded these tariffs to include the EU, Mexico, and Canada. The Trump administration separately set and escalated tariffs on products imported from China, leading to a trade war between the U.S. and China.  In their responses, U.S. trading partners imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products. Canada imposed matching retaliatory tariffs on July 1, 2018. China implemented retaliatory tariffs equivalent to the $34 billion tariff imposed on it by the U.S. In June 2019, India imposed retaliatory tariffs on $240 million worth of U.S. products.  However, tariff negotiations in North America were under way and successful, with the U.S. lifting steel and aluminium tariffs on Mexico and Canada on May 20, 2019. Mexico and Canada joined Argentina and Australia, which were the only countries exempted from the tariffs. But on May 30, Trump announced on his own that he would put a 5% tariff on all imports from Mexico starting on June 10, 2019. The tariffs would go up to 10% on July 1, and then by another 5% every month for three months, until illegal immigrants stopped coming through Mexico and into the U.S. Then the tariffs were averted on June 7 after negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico. U.S. tariffs on Chinese products had been applied as follows: On March 22, 2018, Trump signed a memorandum under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to apply tariffs of $50 billion on Chinese products. In response, China announced plans to implement its tariffs on 128 U.S. products. 120 of those products, such as fruit and wine, will be taxed at a 15% duty, while the remaining eight products, including pork, will receive a 25% tariff. China implemented their tariffs on April 2, 2018.  On April 3, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative's office (the USTR) published an initial list of 1,300+ Chinese products to impose levies upon products like flat-screen televisions, medical devices, aircraft parts and batteries. On April 4, 2018, China's Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council decided to announce a plan to put 25% more tariffs on 106 U.S. goods, such as soybeans and cars.  In the response, On April 5, 2018, President Trump directed the USTR to consider $100 billion in additional tariffs. On May 9, 2018, China cancelled soybean orders exported from the United States to China. On June 15, 2018, President Trump released a list of Chinese products worth $34 billion that would face a 25% tariff, starting on July 6. Another list with $16 billion of Chinese products was released, with an implementation date of August 23.  On July 10, 2018, in reaction to China's retaliatory tariffs that took effect July 6, the USTR issued a proposed list of Chinese products amounting to an annual trade value of about $200 billion that would be subjected to an additional 10% in duties. During the G20 summit in Japan in June 2019, the U.S. and China agreed to resume stalled trade talks, with Trump announcing he would suspend an additional $300 billion in tariffs that had been under consideration. IV. Economic Effects of the Tariffs from the First Trump Administration Changes in tariffs affect economic activity directly by influencing the price of imported products and indirectly through changes in exchange rates and real incomes. The extent of the price change and its impact on trade flows, employment, and production in the United States and abroad depend on resource constraints and how various economic actors (producers of domestic substitutes, foreign producers of the goods subject to the tariffs, producers in downstream industries, and consumers) respond as the effects of the increased tariffs reverberate throughout the economy. According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS), the following six outcomes came out at the level of individual firms and consumers as well as at the level of the national economy. 1. Increased costs for U.S. consumers Higher tariff rates lead to price increases for consumers of products subject to the tariffs and for consumers of downstream products as input costs rise. Higher prices in turn lead to decreased consumption, depending on consumers' price sensitivity for a particular product. For example, consider the monthly price of U.S. laundry equipment, which includes washing machines subject to tariff increases as high as 50% since February 2018. The monthly price of this equipment increased by as much as 14% in 2018 compared to the average price level in 2017, before the tariffs took effect (see Figure 1).   Figure 1: U.S. laundry equipment prices According to Jin (2023), many companies passed the costs of the Trump tariffs on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Following impositions of the tariffs on Chinese products, the prices of U.S. intermediate goods rose by 10% to 30%, an amount equivalent to the size of the tariffs. An April 2019 working paper by Flaaen, Hortaçsu, and Tintel not found that the tariffs on washing machines caused the prices of washers to rise by approximately 12% in the United States. A Goldman Sachs analysis by Fitzgerald in May 2019 found that the consumer price index (CPI) for tariffed products had increased dramatically, compared to a declining CPI for all other core goods. According to the Guardian, the Budget Lab at Yale University found that American consumer prices could rise by 1.4% to 5.1% if Trump implemented his comprehensive tariff plan, which would amount to an additional $1,900 to $7,600 per household. 2. Decreased domestic demand for imported goods subject to the tariffs and less competition for U.S. producers of substitute goods: U.S. producers competing with the imported products subject to the tariffs (e.g., domestic aluminium and steel producers) may benefit to the degree they are able to charge higher prices for their domestic products and may expand production because of increased profitability. Since March 2018, U.S. imports of steel and aluminium have faced additional tariff charges of 25% and 10%, making foreign supplies of these products more expensive relative to domestic products. Because of these tariffs, U.S. imports of these goods went down in 2018 and 2019 compared to what they were usually like in 2017 before the tariffs, while U.S. production went up (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). By the first quarter of 2020, real U.S. imports of steel and aluminium (adjusted for price fluctuations) had decreased by more than 30% and 16%, respectively, from their average 2017 levels. The quarterly production of steel and aluminium in the U.S. during this period, however, increased by as much as 13.5% and 9.0%, respectively, above average 2017 levels.   Figure 2: Domestic production and imports: Steel  Figure 3: Domestic production and imports: Aluminium 3. Increased costs for U.S. producers in downstream industries, resulting in a decline in employment U.S. producers that use imported products subject to the additional tariffs as inputs ("downstream" industries, such as auto manufacturers in the case of the aluminium and steel tariffs) might be harmed as their costs of production increase. Higher input costs are more likely to lead to some combination of lower profits for producers, which in turn might dampen demand for these downstream products, leading to some contraction in these sectors.  A study (2019) by Federal Reserve Board economists Flaaen and Pierce, which examined effects on the manufacturing sector from all U.S. tariff actions in 2018, found that higher input costs from the tariffs were associated with higher prices, employment declines, and reductions in output for affected firms. Another study (2020) by Handley, Kamal, and Monarch found that the higher input costs associated with the tariffs might have led to a decrease in U.S. exports for firms reliant on imported intermediate inputs. Handley, Kamal, and Monarch suggested that export growth was approximately 2% lower for products made with products subject to higher U.S. tariffs, relative to unaffected products. Another study (2019) by Federal Reserve Board economists Flaaen and Pierce found that the steel tariffs led to 0.6% fewer jobs in the manufacturing sector than would have happened in the absence of the tariffs; this cut amounted to approximately 75,000 jobs. A study (2024) by Ma and David concluded that the United States lost 245,000 jobs because of the Trump tariffs.  4. Decreased demand for U.S. exports subject to retaliatory tariffs  Retaliatory tariffs place U.S. exporters at a price disadvantage in export markets relative to competitors from other countries, potentially decreasing demand for U.S. exports to those markets. Since Q3 2018, after Section 232 retaliatory tariffs took effect in China, the EU, Russia, and Türkiye, U.S. exports to these trading partners subject to the tariffs declined by as much as 44% below their 2017 average values (Figure 4). U.S. exports to China subject to retaliation during the same period declined even further from their 2017 levels, falling as much as 68% on a quarterly basis. By contrast, during this same period, overall U.S. exports were as much as 10% higher each quarter relative to 2017, suggesting the retaliatory tariffs played a role in the product-specific export declines.  Figure 4: Declines in U.S. exports subject to retaliation A study by Fajgelbaum, Goldberg, Kennedy, and Khandelwal published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in October 2019 estimated that consumers and firms in the U.S. who buy imports lost $51 billion (0.27% of GDP) because of the 2018 tariffs. This study also found that retaliatory tariffs resulted in a 9.9% decline in U.S. exports. This study also found that workers in counties with a lot of Republicans were hurt the most by the trade war because agricultural products were hit the hardest by retaliatory tariffs.  5. U.S. National Economy In addition to industry- or consumer-level effects, tariffs also have the potential to affect the broader U.S. national economy. Quantitative estimates of the effects vary based on modelling assumptions and techniques, but most studies suggest a negative overall impact on U.S. GDP because of the tariffs.  The Congressional Budget Office (2020) estimated that the increased tariffs in effect as of December 2019 would reduce U.S. GDP by 0.5% in 2020, below a baseline without the tariffs, while raising consumer prices by 0.5%, thereby reducing average real household income by $1,277. From a global perspective, the International Monetary Fund estimated that the tariffs would reduce global GDP in 2020 by 0.8%. Dario Caldara et al. (2020) also found that in 2018, investment dropped by 1.5% because of the uncertainty caused by U.S. trade policy. Moreover, a study (2019) by Amiti, Redding, and David published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives found that by December 2018, Trump's tariffs resulted in a reduction in aggregate U.S. real income of $1.4 billion per month in deadweight losses and cost U.S. consumers an additional $3.2 billion per month in added tax. Furthermore, Russ (2019) found that tariffs, which Trump imposed through mid-2019, combined with the policy uncertainty they created, would reduce the 2020 real GDP growth rate by one percentage point.  6. Trade balance  The Trump administration repeatedly raised concerns over the size of the U.S. trade deficit, thereby making trade deficit reduction a stated objective in negotiations for new U.S. trade agreements. Broad-based tariff increases affecting a large share of imports may reduce imports initially, but they are unlikely to reduce the overall trade deficit over the longer period due to at least two indirect impacts that counteract the initial reduction in imports. One indirect effect is a potential change in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to foreign currencies. Another potential effect of U.S. import tariffs is retaliatory tariffs. Economists argue that while tariffs placed on imports from a limited number of trading partners may reduce the bilateral U.S. trade deficit with those specific nations, this is likely to be offset by an increase in the trade deficit or reduction in the trade surplus with other nations, leaving the total U.S. trade deficit largely unchanged.  Figure 5 shows the relative change in the U.S. goods trade deficit with the world as well as the bilateral U.S. deficits with three major partners, China, Mexico, and Vietnam, from 2017 to 2019. Since the U.S. tariffs took effect, the overall U.S. trade deficit has increased, rising 8% from 2017 to 2019. However, the U.S. trade deficit in goods with China declined by 8% from 2017 to 2019, while the U.S. trade deficit in goods with Vietnam and Mexico significantly increased by more than 40% during the same period.  Figure 5: Changes in the U.S. goods trade deficits with China, Mexico, and Vietnam According to Zarroli (2019), between the time Trump took office in 2017 and March 2019, the U.S. trade deficit increased by $119 billion, reaching $621 billion, the highest it had been since 2008. American Farm Bureau Federation data showed that agriculture exports from the U.S. to China decreased from $19.5 billion in 2017 to $9.1 billion in 2018, a 53% reduction.  V. What are the Potential Consequences of Trump's Tariff Plan? Last year, the Peterson Institute for International Economics examined the impact of President Trump's proposed tariffs based on his campaign promises, which would impose 10 % additional tariffs on US imports from all sources and 60 % additional tariffs on imports from China. The major outcomes were lower national income, lower employment, and higher inflation. McKibbin, Hogan, and Noland (2024) at the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that both of Trump's tariff plans—imposing 10% additional tariffs on U.S. imports from all sources and 60% additional tariffs on imports from China—would reduce both U.S. real GDP and employment by 2028. But the former proposal damages the U.S. economy more than the latter. If other nations retaliate with higher tariffs on their imports from the U.S., the damage intensifies.  Assuming other governments respond in kind, Trump's 10 % increase results in U.S. real GDP that is 0.9 % lower than otherwise by 2026, and U.S. inflation rises 1.3 % above the baseline in 2025.  The 10 % added tariffs hurt the economies of Canada, Mexico, China, Germany, and Japan—all major US trading partners that see a lower GDP relative to their baselines through 2040. Mexico and Canada take much larger GDP hits than the U.S. The 60 % added tariffs on imports from China reduce its GDP relative to its baseline, much more than that of other U.S. trading partners. Mexico, however, sees a higher GDP than otherwise as some production shifts to Mexico from China. This paper focuses on Trump's universal 10 % tariffs rather than 60 % tariffs on imports from China because extreme 60 % tariffs on Chinese imports are not expected. McKibbin, Hogan, and Noland (2024) assume the 10 % tariff increase is implemented in 2025 and remains in place through the forecast period. They also consider a second scenario in which U.S. trading partners retaliate with equivalent tariff increases on products they import from the U.S.  Figures 6–11 show the results for the uniform additional 10 % increase in the tariff on imports of goods and services from all trading partners.   Figure 6: Projected change in real GDP of selected economies from an additional 10 % increase in US tariffs on imports of goods and services from all trading partners, 2025-40 (Source: McKibbin, Hogan, and Noland, 2024) When tariffs go up by 10%, the U.S. real GDP goes down by 0.36 % by 2026, and it goes down even more in Mexico and Canada by 2027 (see Figure 6). Chinese GDP drops by 0.25 % below the baseline in 2025. After the initial demand-induced slowdown, U.S. GDP recovers as production shifts from foreign suppliers to U.S. suppliers, leading to a slightly lower long-term GDP of 0.1 % below baseline by 2030 in the U.S.   Figure 7: Projected change in employment (hours worked) in selected economies from an additional 10 % increase in US tariffs on imports of goods and services from all trading partners, 2025-40 (Source: McKibbin, Hogan, and Noland, 2024) The results for aggregate employment are like the GDP outcomes (see figure 7). Employment drops in the United States by 0.6 % by 2026 but recovers due to a supply relocation towards U.S. suppliers. U.S. employment returns to baseline eventually because real wages decline permanently to bring employment back to baseline by assumption.  Figure 8: Projected change in inflation in selected economies from an additional 10% increase in US tariffs on imports of goods and services from all trading partners, 2025-40 (Source: McKibbin, Hogan, and Noland, 2024) The imposition of higher tariffs increases prices of both consumer and intermediate goods, contributing to a rise in inflation of 0.6 % above baseline in 2025 (see figure 8).  The higher tariff is inflationary everywhere except in China due to the tightening of Chinese monetary policy to resist change in the exchange rate relative to the U.S. dollar.   Figure 9: Projected change in the trade balance in selected economies from an additional 10 % increase in US tariffs on imports of goods and services from all trading partners, 2025-40 (Source: McKibbin, Hogan, and Noland (2024)) Figure 9 shows the change in the trade balance as a share of GDP. In theory, the trade balance can worsen or improve due to changes in exports and imports. From 2025 to 2028, the U.S. trade deficit narrows slightly but then widens as capital flows into the U.S. economy, appreciating the U.S. real effective exchange rate. By 2030, the U.S. trade deficit will worsen by 0.1 % of GDP due to capital moving from Mexico and Canada into the U.S. Government savings rise due to additional tariff revenues.  VI. Conclusion  This paper showed that tariffs imposed by the first Trump administration had negative impacts on the U.S. economy, particularly inflation, incomes, and employment. It also demonstrated that tariffs which will be imposed by the second Trump administration are expected to have negative effects on the U.S. economy. Then a question arises: "Why does Trump attempt to impose tariffs on products from abroad?" Today, more people mention tariffs as tools to protect U.S. companies and farmers. They are discussed as a tool for bringing back manufacturing businesses into the U.S. as well as a bargaining tactic in negotiations over the flow of fentanyl and immigration. Trump has used and promised to increase tariffs for three purposes: to raise revenue, to bring trade into balance, and to bring rival countries to heel. It is unclear whether Trump will achieve his goals. However, President Donald Trump believes that tariffs are a panacea. Trump believes that his tariffs would bring hundreds of billions—trillions— into the US Treasury. Moreover, Trump is confident that he can force countries to give up something he believes is in America's best interest. For example, his tariffs on Canada and Mexico have led Mexico and Canada to agree to expand their border patrols. Reference  Amiti Mary, Redding Stephen, David E, “The Impact of the 2018 Tariffs on Prices and Welfare,” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 33 (Fall 2019): 187–210. Boer, L. and M. Rieth, “The Macroeconomic Consequences of Import Tariffs and Trade Policy Uncertainty,” IMF Working Paper 2024/013, International Monetary Fund. Cavallo, A., G. Gopinath, B. Neiman, and J. Tang (2021), “Tariff Pass-Through at the Border and at the Store: Evidence from US Trade Policy,” American Economic Review: Insights 3(1): 19-34.  Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2020 to 2030, January 28, 2020. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-01/56020-CBO-Outlook.pdf.  Dario Caldara et al., “The Economic Effects of Trade Policy Uncertainty,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 109 (January 2020), pp. 38-59. Dornbusch, R. (1992), “The Case for Trade Liberalization in Developing Countries,” Journal of Economic perspectives 6 (1): 69-85.  De Loecker, J., P.K. Goldberg, A.K. Khandelwal and N. Pavcnik (2016), “prices, markups, and trade reform,” Econometrica 84(2): 445-510.  Eichengreen, B. (1981), “A Dynamic Model of Tariffs and Employment under Flexible Exchange Rates,” Journal of International Economics 11:341-359.  Eichengreen, B. (2018), “Trade Policy and the Macroeconomy,” Keynote address Mun dell-Fleming Lecture, International Monetary Fund, 13 March 2018.  Fajgelbaum, P.D., P.K. Goldberg, P.J. Kennedy and A.K. Khandelwal (2019), “The Return to Protectionism,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135(1): 1-55.  Fitzgerald, Maggie, “This Chart from the Goldman Sachs Shows Tariffs are Rasing Prices for Consumers and It could Get Worse.” CNBC. May 13, 2019. Flaaen, A. and J.R. Pierce (2019), “Disentangling the effects of the 2018-2019 tariffs on globally connected U.S. Manufacturing sector,” Working Paper, Finance Economic Discussion Series 2019-086, Board of Governors Federal Reserve System, Washington DC.  Flaaen, A., A. Hortacsu and F. Tintelnot (2020), “The production relocation and price effects of US trade policy: the Case of Washing Machines,” American Economic Review 110(7): 2103-2127.  Frankel, J.A. and D.H. Romer (1999), “Does Trade Cause Growth,” American Economic Review 89 (3): 379-399. Handley, K., F. Kamal, and R. Monarch (2020), “Rising Import Tariffs, Falling Export Growth: When Modern Supply Chains Meet Old-Style Protectionism,” NBER Working paper 26611. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26611. Handley, K. and N. Limao (2022), “Trade Policy Uncertainty,” NBER Working Paper 29672.  Handley, Kyle, Fariha Kamal, and Ryan Monarch, “Rising Import Tariffs, Falling Export Growth: When Modern Supply Chains Meet Old-Style Protectionism,” National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 26611, January 2020. Jin, Keyu (2023). The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism. New York: Viking. Kreuter, H. and M. Riccaboni (2023), “The Impact of Import Tariffs on GDP and Consumer Welfare: A Production Network Approach,” Journal of Economic Modelling 126.  Krugman, P. (1982), “The Macroeconomics of Protection with a Floating Exchange rate,” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 16: 141-182.  Ma, Xinru; Kang, David C. (2024). Beyond Power Transitions: The Lessons of East Asian History and the Future of U.S.-China Relations. Columbia Studies in International Order and Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.  McKibbin, W., M. Hogan, and M. Noland (2024), “The International Economic Implications of a Second Trump Presidency,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, Working Paper 24-20.  Mundell, R. (1961), “Flexible Exchange Rates and Employment Policy,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 27: 509-517.  Obstfeld, M., and K. Rogoff (1995), “Exchange Rate Dynamics Redux,” Journal of Political Economy, 103: 624-660.  Russ, Katheryn (December 16, 2019). “What Unilateralism Means for the Future of the U.S. Economy,” Harvard Business Review. January 2, 2020.  Zarroli, Jim. “Despite Trump’s Promises, The Trade Deficit is Only Getting Wider,” NPR. March 6, 2019.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском With Donald Trump seemingly determined to push the US economy on a path towards autarky, our major trading partners will need to make alternative arrangements. This is especially the case with Canada, since its economy is so closely tied to the US economy. At this point, Mark Carney, the country’s new Prime Minister, knows there is little possibility of dealing with Trump rationally. Trump has bizarre and totally imagined grievances against Canada. His main complaint seems to be that the United States runs a $200 billion trade deficit with Canada, which Trump describes as Canada ripping off the United States. It’s hard to believe that anyone would say that selling stuff to a willing and well-informed customer is ripping them off. Presumably we buy stuff from Canada because it’s cheaper than the stuff we either produce ourselves or could buy from other countries. Also, the deficit is entirely due to purchases of oil from Canada, something Trump sought to promote in his first term. We have mostly balanced trade if we exclude oil. In fact, the claims of unfairness are based on a treaty that Trump himself negotiated in his first term. Trump can’t even get his numbers straight. Rather than being $200 billion, our trade deficit is less than one-third this size, at just over $60 billion. Trump’s erratic craziness makes the prospect of a real and lasting deal very dim. Carney has to look to secure stronger trade deals with more stable partners. Europe and Latin America are clearly part of the that story, but China needs to be too, as the world’s largest economy. There are opportunities for major gains from trade with China, especially in the auto sector, which had been thoroughly intertwined with the United States and Mexico. Carney has to work from the assumption that these links could be severed for the indefinite future. Here China’s enormous progress in developing electric vehicles offers a great opportunity to Canada. China now sells high quality, low-cost EVs. It has also developed battery technology to the point where a battery can be fully charged in six minutes, not much different than the time it takes to fill a tank of gas. Canada can in principle negotiate trade deals with China where it partially opens its market to its EVs, in exchange for a commitment to technology transfer. The plan would be that in a few years Canadian manufacturers would adopt the latest Chinese technology and supply much of the market themselves. Since Canada has more union-friendly labor law than the United States, they can structure their deal so that the factory jobs would be largely good-paying union jobs. This would be good for the environment, good for Canadian workers and consumers, and good for Canada’s economy, since it means car buyers will have considerably more money to spend on other items or to save. It would also set up a great contrast with the United States, where Trump is determined to try to lock the country into building and buying cars that rely on old-fashioned internal combustion (IC) engines. While Canadians are buying high-quality EVs, people in the United States will be buying IC cars for two or even three times the price. Furthermore, while we are paying $40 to $60 to fill our tanks every couple of weeks, Canadians will be able to power their vehicles for ten or fifteen dollars a charge. The move to EVs will also mean that Trump will have imposed a permanent cost on the US car industry, even if he eventually learns a little economics and discovers his tariffs were not a good idea. If Canada develops a vibrant EV industry, it will not be going back to the integrated production structure with the United States that it had with IC vehicle producers before the trade war. Trump is not going to be able to get Canadians to buy more expensive IC vehicles. The only way for the United States auto industry to go forward, if we move back towards more normal trade with Canada, will be for it to double-down on developing EVs itself. There obviously will be many other problems that Canada will have to deal with as it attempts to cope with unwinding decades of economic integrations with the United States, but working with China on adopting EV technology should be a no-brainer. In this area, Trump may have done Canada a big favor.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The question of migration occupies a central and divisive place in US politics. Yet critical questions are rarely asked about why migrants decide to leave their homes in the first place and what role US foreign policy might play in that decision. This oversight is especially glaring when it comes to one of the most common tools of US foreign policy: broad economic sanctions. There is overwhelming evidence (1) that migration1 is driven in large part by adverse economic conditions and (2) that sanctions can have severe, harmful economic and humanitarian consequences for civilians in targeted countries. The cases of Cuba and Venezuela demonstrate this relationship clearly: The imposition or tightening of sanctions by the US government have, in recent years, fueled economic crises that in turn have led to record migratory outflows. Addressing migration at its roots will require rethinking US sanctions policy as part of a broader research and policy agenda that considers the role of US foreign policy in fueling migratory push factors abroad. Economic Hardship Drives Migration The decision to emigrate — often involving leaving one’s home, family, and community to undertake a perilous journey to a new country with a different language and culture, without any guarantee of safety, accommodation, or employment — is not typically one that is taken lightly. Such a life-altering decision is rarely reducible to a single factor but is rather made in the context of multiple and interrelated push and pull factors. However, one of the most well-established sets of factors that impact migration are economic. There is broad consensus that economic conditions in the country of origin are a major determinant of the desire to migrate. A recent review of 72 peer-reviewed, survey-based analyses of migration aspirations found an overwhelming relationship between the desire to migrate and economic factors, including perception of national economic conditions, employment opportunities, household financial situation, food security, contentment with public services, and expectations of future economic conditions. A similar relationship holds true of realized migration. Many have hypothesized an inverted U-shaped relationship between development and migration, whereby higher GDP per capita is associated with increased migration as would-be migrants gain the means to do so, until a certain point — after which higher income is associated with decreased migration. However, recent research suggests that this U-shaped relationship, though observed in cross-sectional analyses, does not hold for a given country over time.2 Rather, the relationship is clearer: poor or deteriorating economic and humanitarian conditions cause people to migrate from developing countries while growth and stability lead people to stay home. Sanctions Fuel Economic Hardship Over the past two decades, the number of US-imposed sanctions has grown nearly tenfold. The United States is by far the most prevalent user of sanctions, with one-third of all countries — and over 60 percent of low-income countries — facing US sanctions in some form. While many sanctions are narrowly targeted against particular individuals or entities, others target entire sectors or even the entire economy of a country. Such broad-based sanctions are indiscriminate and can have profound impacts on the economies, and therefore civilians, of targeted nations (and even purportedly targeted sanctions can have significant spillover effects). Broad-based sanctions can impede economic growth, potentially triggering or extending recessions and even depressions; restrict access to critical resources like medicine, food, and energy; disrupt humanitarian aid (despite nominal exemptions); and consequently exacerbate poverty, illness, and hunger. As a result, sanctions can lead to a significant number — in some cases tens of thousands — of preventable deaths. In a 2023 literature review for CEPR, economist Francisco Rodríguez determined that 94 percent of peer-reviewed econometric studies on the subject found substantial, statistically significant “negative effects on outcomes ranging from per capita income to poverty, inequality, mortality, and human rights” as a result of sanctions. One study associated sanctions with, on average, a 26 percent drop in GDP per capita — roughly the size of the Great Depression. Another tied sanctions to a 1.4-year decline in female life expectancy — comparable with the global impact of COVID-19. Yet another found a 2.5 percent increase in childhood HIV infection rates. While such indiscriminate impacts are often denied by the policymakers that impose sanctions, it is difficult to reconcile this denial with the fact that major macroeconomic factors such as growth rates, oil production, foreign reserves, currency stability, and the cost of essential goods are widely used — often by these very same policymakers — as metrics of “success” of sanctions. That these macroeconomic factors would in turn impact civilians is all but undeniable. In fact, there are significant reasons to believe that the broad economic and humanitarian impacts of certain sanctions regimes are intentional — and therefore are not a matter of calibration, but are inherent to the policy itself. Sanctions Induce MigrationIf migration is driven in part by economic hardship and sanctions can cause great economic and humanitarian suffering, then it follows that sanctions can substantially contribute to migration. This is not just borne out logically, but can be seen in the data. In October 2024, the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization published what may be the first and only systematic cross-national empirical analysis of how such sanctions impact international migration. The findings are striking. Using data on migration flows from 157 countries over more than half a century, the authors find that Western multilateral sanctions3 have increased emigration from target countries by, on average, 22 to 24 percent. Notably, they also find that “migrant flows return to their pre-sanction level once sanctions are lifted.” In few cases is this relationship between sanctions and migration clearer than in the cases of Cuba and Venezuela. Trump-Biden Sanctions Spur Cuban Depopulation The US embargo against Cuba — referred to by many as a blockade due to its extraterritorial impacts — is the US’s oldest and most comprehensive sanctions regime. Beginning in 1960 with export prohibitions in response to the Castro government’s agrarian reforms and nationalizations, successive administrations soon escalated this embargo into a comprehensive ban on nearly all trade, travel, and financial transactions, with the goal of destabilizing and ultimately toppling the Cuban government. While these sanctions have been periodically tightened or relaxed over the years, this foundational, comprehensive embargo has remained intact for over six decades and has since been enshrined into law through the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996. During his last two years in office, President Barack Obama took significant steps toward the normalization of bilateral relations with Cuba by, among other things, formally resuming diplomatic relations, loosening restrictions on travel and remittances, and removing Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) list, a measure that had effectively cut the island off from much of the global financial system. However, under the first Donald Trump administration, these policies were largely reversed, and the embargo was expanded to an unprecedented level. President Joe Biden, despite campaign promises to change the course of Cuban policy, maintained most of President Trump’s measures. Days before leaving office, Biden issued executive orders undoing Trump’s harshest sanctions measures only to see them predictably rescinded immediately following Trump’s return to the White House. In the case of both Trump and Biden, Cuban policy appears to have been driven in large part by electoral considerations in Florida, where hawkish Cuban American voters have long (and questionably) been seen as a key demographic in both parties’ efforts to win the state. The US embargo has long hindered Cuban economic growth and development, particularly since the late 1980s when the Soviet Union and its COMECON partners discontinued economic support for the island. In 2018, the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean validated the Cuban government’s estimates that the six-decade embargo had cost the country $130 billion. By 2024, that estimate had grown to $164 billion. A recent econometric study on changes in US policy toward Cuba between 1990 and 2020 found a “substantial negative impact of sanctions policy shifts on Cuban economic growth.” Further, “this impact on GDP is concentrated in the component of household consumption” — in other words, Cuban citizens bear the highest burden. Over the last few years, Cuba’s economic situation has deteriorated further, in large part as a result of Trump-Biden policies. Measures such as returning Cuba to the SSOT list (despite no evidence of Cuban support for terrorism), restricting remittances, and prohibiting US citizens from doing business with dozens of “restricted entities” have greatly limited Cuba’s access to foreign exchange. This has, in turn, prevented Cuba from importing many essential goods (including critical pharmaceutical and agricultural inputs) and services (including maintenance services for Cuba’s ailing energy infrastructure), servicing its external debt, and perhaps most crucially, stabilizing the local currency following a major monetary reform in 2021. Another Trump measure — his decision to implement Title III of the LIBERTAD Act — has had a significant chilling effect on foreign investment in Cuba only a few years after the enactment of a reform opening up most sectors of the economy to foreign investors. This controversial provision, which allows for lawsuits against US or foreign persons doing business with Cuban entities that use or benefit from property expropriated at the beginning of the Cuban Revolution, had been waived by prior presidents and by Trump himself, until April 2019. The far-reaching negative impact of these and other Trump measures are part of the reason why Cuba’s economy has failed to significantly recover from the global economic downturn triggered by the COVID pandemic. Cuba has been plunged into the most serious economic and humanitarian crisis of its contemporary history, characterized by repeated blackouts, water shortages, fuel shortages, rising food costs, the deterioration of basic services such as garbage collection, and the spread of preventable diseases. Cuba’s fledgling private sector, which greatly expanded following Obama’s normalization measures and domestic liberalization measures in 2019 and 2021, is facing an uncertain future as a result of the crisis and new, stricter Cuban regulations designed in part to offset the effects of sanctions by capturing increasingly scarce foreign exchange. This economic crisis has in turn spurred a migration crisis. Data from the national statistics office of the government of Cuba shows skyrocketing net emigration following 2020 (see Figure 1). By August 2022, the outflow of migrants had surpassed that of the famous 1980 Mariel boatlift and the 1994 Balsero/Rafter crises combined.   Independent research — later confirmed by the Cuban government — estimates an even larger increase than those published by the national statistics office: the departure of over one million people, representing 10 percent of the country’s entire population, in 2022 and 2023 alone. As one researcher warned in 2022: “Cuba is depopulating.” While not all of these migrants ended up in the United States, the years 2022 and 2023 saw record-breaking numbers of encounters with Cuban migrants by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In 2022, the CBP encountered more Cubans than any other nationality except Mexicans. Cubans constituted more than 10 percent of all encounters.4 Given the Trump administration’s, and particularly Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s, apparent commitment to maintaining the current policy toward Cuba — and perhaps even hardening it with yet more sanctions — we can expect out-migration from the island to continue at record levels for the foreseeable future. “Maximum Pressure” Sanctions Fueled Venezuelan Exodus While the US has maintained limited sanctions on Venezuela since 2005, the current sanctions regime is defined by the “maximum pressure” campaign initiated during the first Trump administration in an attempt to push President Nicolás Maduro out of office. In August 2017, Trump blocked the government of Venezuela, including the state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), from accessing financial markets. In late 2018, Trump sanctioned the gold sector. Perhaps most significantly, the oil sector and PDVSA were designated as sanctioned entities in January 2019. Additional sanctions on the financial and defense sectors and the central bank soon followed, alongside the escalation of secondary sanctions against third parties. The US’s and many of its allies’ policy of nonrecognition of the Maduro government has also led to effective sanctions, such as the loss of access to roughly $2 billion in reserves held at the Bank of England and $5 billion in Special Drawing Rights at the International Monetary Fund. These “maximum pressure” policies were largely maintained under the Biden administration, with a few significant exceptions. Since November 2022, Chevron Corporation has been permitted to produce and export oil from Venezuela. In October 2023, Biden issued a General License temporarily lifting most oil sector and PDVSA sanctions but allowed the license to expire six months later (while leaving a wind-down period). Though Venezuela’s economic crisis — driven in part by both misguided economic policies and falling global oil prices — began prior to the imposition of sanctions, US sanctions have substantially contributed to the severity and longevity of the contraction. Sanctions impact the Venezuelan economy through numerous channels, but perhaps none more significantly than through oil. The Venezuelan economy is highly dependent on oil exports, historically relying on the sector — and its main actor, PDVSA — for 95 percent of its foreign exchange. From 2.4 million barrels per day (bpd) prior to the crisis, oil output hit a low of 0.4 million bpd in mid-2020 — an 83 percent collapse. Even with today’s Chevron license, output has yet to break 1 million bpd. A 2022 analysis by Francisco Rodríguez attributes 797,000 bpd of this decline to the 2017 sanctions alone. Other assessments point to similar figures, with some attributing more than half of the decline to sanctions. As Rodríguez points out, new sanctions are associated with marked downward inflection points in Venezuelan oil output (see Figure 2).   Ultimately, the Venezuelan crisis saw a 71 percent collapse in GDP per capita. As Rodríguez notes, this was the equivalent of three Great Depressions and the largest peacetime economic contraction in modern history. By Rodríguez’s assessments, more than half of this decline was attributable to sanctions and related political acts. Whatever claims policymakers may make about the targeted nature of sanctions, such broad macroeconomic effects inescapably and indiscriminately impact civilians. In addition to the general effects of economic contraction and the loss of foreign exchange with which to import essential goods such as food and medicine, sanctions have also inhibited shipments of COVID vaccines and other medical supplies; contributed to the degradation of the energy grid and frequency of electrical shortages; and otherwise furthered the deterioration of public health, education, and water services. Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures reports that sanctions on Venezuela have “prevented the earning of revenues and use of resources to maintain and develop infrastructure and for social support programs, which has a devastating effect on the entire population of Venezuela, especially — but not only — those living in extreme poverty, women, children, medical workers, people with disabilities or life-threatening or chronic diseases, and the indigenous population.” According to one CEPR estimate, sanctions likely led to tens of thousands of excess deaths in one year alone. Unsurprisingly, such a dire humanitarian crisis has contributed to an unprecedented mass exodus. In the last decade, over seven million Venezuelans have left the country. In one of the few direct quantitative studies on the impacts of sanctions on migration, Francisco Rodríguez finds that over four million of these seven million left “as a result of the economic deterioration caused by sanctions and toxification effects.” Rodríguez further estimates that a return to “maximum pressure” policies would result in the emigration of an additional one million Venezuelans in the coming five years. While the vast majority of these Venezuelan migrants ended up in countries closer to home, such as Colombia and Peru, a growing number have made their way to the US border as well (see Figure 3).   In 2023 and 2024, CBP encountered more migrants from Venezuela than any other country except Mexico.5 According to survey data from the Migration Policy Institute, Venezuela is the single fastest growing country of birth of immigrants to the US since “maximum pressure” began in 2017 (alongside other sanctioned countries, such as Afghanistan — number 2 — and Nicaragua — number 7). The Trump administration was repeatedly warned that mass migration was a likely consequence of its sanctions policy, yet pursued it anyway. According to one senior US Department of State official: “This is the point I made at the time: I said the sanctions were going to grind the Venezuelan economy into dust and have huge human consequences, one of which would be out-migration.” To Address Migration, Lift Economic Sanctions Though migration has many causes, and it is difficult to precisely quantify the contribution of sanctions to overall emigration levels, the following are nonetheless clear: 1. Migration is driven in large part as a reaction to adverse economic conditions.2. Economic sanctions often have profound adverse economic impacts.3. Econometric evidence indicates that sanctions directly contribute to migratory flows.4. In Cuba and Venezuela, economic sanctions are associated with mass migration. While fearmongering and anti-migrant sentiment should be flatly rejected, it is plainly preferable that people in other nations not be forced into circumstances that compel their displacement. To achieve this goal, broad economic sanctions must be lifted. Recognition of the link between sanctions and migration has been growing among US policymakers. In May 2023, 21 members of Congress — led by members representing border states that have witnessed an influx of large numbers of migrants — sent a letter to President Biden urging the easing of sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela to mitigate push factors for migration. A separate letter from over 50 economists and other scholars shortly followed, corroborating the claim that lifting sanctions would help ease migration. Former Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, whose country is also impacted by migratory flows, has said the same. An Alternative Approach to Migration Is Available This relationship between US economic sanctions and migration further suggests the need for a research and policy agenda that considers migration within the context of global inequalities and underdevelopment and critically considers the role of US foreign policy — including but not limited to sanctions — in reproducing and exacerbating migratory push factors. In other words, addressing migration at its root requires rethinking and rectifying the US’s approach to Latin America as well as other parts of the Global South. While the Biden administration proclaimed a “root-causes” strategy toward addressing migration from Central America, intending to address push factors in countries of origin, including corruption, crime, and economic insecurity, the strategy failed to consider how the US’s own policies might exacerbate these conditions. In contrast, the recently established Congressional Caucus to Address Global Migration and the Migration Stability Resolution introduced by its co-founder, Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), take a more comprehensive approach, aiming to — in Rep. Casar’s words — “[change] the failed US policies that cause displacement abroad and force people to flee their home countries.” Tackling broad economic sanctions, anti-worker trade agreements, US security assistance for repressive governments, inequalities in the global financial system, and more, these efforts offer an alternative path toward addressing migration: a path that is both more humane and more effective. Footnotes 1. For the purposes of this article, “migration” is used to refer specifically to international migration.2. Moreover, as CEPR Senior Research Fellow Francisco Rodríguez explains, even if there were truth to the U-shaped hypothesis, it would be a story of the long-run structural and societal transformations that accompany development and would not contradict a thesis that short-run economic contractions — such as those that might result from the imposition of sanctions — fuel migration across income levels. Indeed, short-run fluctuations in growth and employment are observed to significantly impact migration.3. While this study assessed joint US-EU sanctions specifically, one can expect a similar relationship to hold in unilateral US sanctions, given the dominant role of the United States in the global financial system and given that EU sanctions policy often follows the lead of US policy.4. Authors’ calculations based on CBP nationwide encounters data, converted from fiscal to calendar years.5. Authors’ calculations based on CBP nationwide encounters data, converted from fiscal to calendar years.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Latin America has been a long-standing policy focus for the United States, aimed at keeping external influences out and maintaining stability in the region. This commitment began with the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary and continued through the Cold War. Under the current administration, there has been a renewed emphasis on Latin America due to rising Chinese influence, drug cartel activity, and immigration issues. The most recent National Security Strategy (NSS) states that no region impacts the United States more than the Western Hemisphere and emphasizes the need to “protect against external interference or coercion, including from the People’s Republic of China (PRC).” However, the United States has not had a coherent strategy or policy toward Latin America in decades, leading to outcomes contrary to its stated goals. The PRC has been rapidly expanding its influence in the region. Since 2010, China has nearly tripled its trade with Latin America, with several nations signing on to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Additionally, Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) continue to affect the United States through drug, weapon, and human trafficking, while also forcing migrants north due to unsafe living conditions in their home countries. Given this situation, the United States must develop a coherent two-pronged strategy toward Latin America. This strategy should involve expanding economic investments to counteract Chinese influence while also strengthening regional security to address the threats posed by TCOs. Recognizing that the PRC and TCOs are different from the Soviets and Marxist guerrillas, US policy during the Cold War provides valuable lessons on what this two-pronged approach could entail. US Cold War Policy in Latin America In the early days of the Cold War, the United States was concerned about the spread of communism in Latin America but initially failed to take meaningful action. It relied instead on outdated policies from the 1920s. This approach continued until the late 1950s, when significant changes occurred in the hemisphere. By then, ten of thirteen dictators had been replaced, economic challenges had intensified, and the prices of Latin American exports had plummeted. This social and political unrest carried over into the 1960s, as the region became “aflame” with Marxist revolutions. The CIA reported that twelve out of twenty-three nations in the southern hemisphere were at risk of falling to communism. This urgency prompted the United States to act, determined to prevent the region from succumbing to Soviet influence and instability. The Kennedy administration identified economic struggles and monetary insecurity as the principal vulnerabilities that could allow communism to take root. To address these issues, the administration launched the Alliance for Progress, a ten-year initiative where the United States would provide $20 billion in loans, grants, and investments, while Latin American governments aimed to generate $80 billion in funds and implement land reforms, tax systems, and other socio-political changes. In tandem with economic initiatives, the United States employed covert actions, counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics, and military support to suppress Marxist revolutions. For instance, in Guatemala, US-backed military forces fought against Marxist revolutionaries with American military assistance. Similar operations took place in El Salvador, Chile, Paraguay, and Brazil. Although not executed flawlessly, this two-pronged strategy ultimately succeeded in keeping Soviet and communist influences largely at bay in the region. Economic assistance and support helped stabilize democracy in Venezuela, while land redistribution and reforms from the Alliance for Progress undermined financial support for Marxist guerrilla groups in Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia. Despite being conducted with a certain level of negligence, US-backed COIN operations across the region weakened guerrilla movements, leading to factional splits and self-defeating behaviors. Notably, US-supported operations included the capture of Che Guevara by a US-trained Bolivian military unit in 1967. Applying a Cold War-like Policy Today Economic challenges are once again prevalent in Latin America, and China is seizing the opportunity. Through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has expanded its influence and bolstered regional ties. Twenty Latin American countries have signed onto the BRI, while Chile, Costa Rica, and Peru have established free trade agreements with the PRC. In 2010, trade between China and South America amounted to $180 billion, which surged to $450 billion by 2021. The United States needs to consider a strategy similar to the Alliance for Progress to effectively compete with the PRC and maintain its influence in the region, as it is currently falling short in this area. In 2023, China invested $9 billion in Latin America through its Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI), while the United States contributed only $2 billion for the same year. As the new administration shapes its foreign policy, it is essential to allocate more economic investment to Latin America. This should involve a deliberate economic policy and investment plan that focuses on trade, port infrastructure, and technological development—all areas where the PRC is currently providing support. The bipartisan Americas Act of 2024 is a good starting point, but it is insufficient to counteract the PRC’s advances. While some might argue that boosting economic investment is too expensive, such efforts would enable the United States to compete with China while stabilizing the region and reducing northward immigration. In tandem with economic investment, the United States must advocate for stronger regional security to combat TCOs, thus fostering stability and improving living conditions. Specifically, the United States should collaborate with Latin American countries to enhance security institutions by expanding advisory and assistance operations with regional militaries, similar to COIN operations during the Cold War. In recent years, the United States military has maintained a significant presence in countries like Colombia, Panama, and Honduras to conduct Foreign Internal Defense (FID) operations, aimed at preparing partner forces to effectively combat TCOs. FID and Security Force Assistance (SFA) operations should include US military support for other nations in the region, such as El Salvador, Bolivia, and Mexico. Historically, countries like Mexico have been hesitant or resistant to accepting US military support; however, this trend has recently shifted. In a positive development, the Mexican Senate has approved a small contingent of US Special Operations Forces (SOF) to assist Mexican SOF personnel. In addition to expanding FID operations, the United States might explore granting broader authorities to allow US military forces to assist regional partners in targeting and operational planning against TCOs. While some may oppose this option, expanded authorities should not come as a surprise, given that the new administration has designated several TCOs as terrorist organizations. This designation opens the door for discussions on expanded authorities. Conclusion During the Cold War, Latin America was a primary focus of US policy. The United States worked diligently to maintain regional hegemony and prevent the spread of communist ideology in the Western Hemisphere. Today, Latin America and the southern border have again become focal points for the current US administration. With the rising influence of China in the region and the ongoing impact of TCOs on American life, the United States must develop deliberate policies and strategies to maintain its hegemonic influence while promoting stability. This strategy should consist of a two-pronged approach that emphasizes both economic investment and regional security. Such an approach could disrupt Chinese influence while fostering a safer and more stable region, ultimately reducing migration northward—a key objective for the current administration. Article, originally written by and published in Small Wars Journal under the title "Same But Different: Cold War Strategy in 21st Century Latin America." Consult here: https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/03/06/same-but-different-cold-war-strategy-in-21st-century-latin-america/. This translation is shared under the same Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 license.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Trump escalates his trade war rhetoric and has just begun his second term. In response to the Colombian government's protest over the conditions of its citizens' deportation, the 47th U.S. president retaliated with a furious announcement of a 25% tariff hike, forcing Petro to withdraw his demands. Against Canada and Mexico, his neighbors and trade partners, he has just signed another 25% tariff increase. The reasons? According to Trump, their borders are a sieve for drugs and illegal immigrants. As for China, he has so far imposed a 10% tariff, though his campaign promise was 60%. In the 21st century, trade wars are one of the most controversial strategic tools in international relations. The Economy: A Geostrategic Factor Tariffs have historically been used to protect local industries and balance trade deficits. However, their current use goes beyond their original purpose. These policies have transformed global economic dynamics, reshaping supply chains and markets, and profoundly impacting geopolitical, social, and financial structures. Competitiveness and Technological Strength The contemporary use of trade wars follows a more complex and multifaceted logic. In the case of the United States, for example, the tariffs imposed by recent administrations have aimed both to limit China’s competitiveness and to preserve U.S. technological and economic supremacy. This strategy, however, is not limited to a bilateral confrontation. The United States has also imposed trade barriers on traditional partners such as the European Union and Canada. As a result, traditional alliances have become secondary to the unilateral goal of maximizing profits. This policy has been justified under national security arguments, a legal tool that has generated tensions within the World Trade Organization (WTO) and challenges the principles of non-discrimination and multilateralism that have underpinned the global trade system since the mid-20th century. The impact of these policies affects both intergovernmental relations and, directly, consumers and producers. Tariffs and the Domestic Economy The implementation of tariffs on products from China, such as technological goods and manufactured equipment, has driven up their prices in markets like the United States. As always happens when goods become more expensive, this has especially harmed the most vulnerable sectors of the population by exacerbating economic inequalities and reducing their purchasing power. To maintain competitiveness, many companies have opted to relocate their operations to countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, or Mexico, which entails transition and adaptation costs. Regionalization against Protectionism At a global level, trade wars have triggered a phenomenon of regionalization, leading to the creation of agreements such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), led by China and signed by countries in Asia and Oceania, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which includes nations from the Pacific coasts of Asia and Latin America. Through these agreements, the signatory countries seek to counteract the effects of U.S. protectionist policies. Since 2019, the United States has blocked the appointment of new members to the WTO Appellate Body, weakening its ability to resolve disputes and increasing uncertainty, as well as the likelihood of escalating trade tensions. While regionalization forces a reassessment of the sustainability of the multilateral trade system, in this climate of instability and uncertainty, countries are searching for alternatives that ensure economic stability — though these solutions ultimately reinforce the fragmentation of global trade. Trade War and Geopolitics The impact of trade wars is also evident in the geopolitical sphere. The rivalry between the United States and China, driven in part by tariffs and technological restrictions, is redefining international alliances. On one hand, countries like Japan and South Korea have strengthened ties with the United States to counter China’s influence. On the other hand, emerging economies in Latin America, such as Mexico and Brazil, face pressure to align with one of these blocs, limiting their maneuverability and autonomy on the global stage. In Europe, tensions with the United States have led the European Union to prepare new tariffs and strengthen regulations to protect its strategic industries, such as the automotive and technology sectors. Uncertainty and Volatility While the imposition of tariffs can provide immediate benefits to the countries that implement them — whether in terms of tax revenue or political influence — their social and economic costs can be significant. Trade wars impact the flow of goods and services but also financial stability. Trade tensions increase stock market volatility, influence investment decisions, and weaken global economic growth prospects. The uncertainty generated by protectionism forces companies to adapt to an ever-changing and unpredictable environment. Trade wars have exposed the fragility of global supply chains, underscored the importance of diversifying production sources, and highlighted the need to strengthen multilateral institutions that promote fair and equitable trade. What to Do? The solution goes beyond simply removing tariffs or reversing protectionist policies; a more strategic and resilient approach is needed. This involves fostering international cooperation to address trade tensions, reforming the WTO’s dispute resolution mechanisms, and promoting the relocation of supply chains to more stable regions. Countries that impose tariffs must also consider the impact of these measures on households. Rising prices should prompt policies to mitigate growing social inequalities and protect the most vulnerable sectors. The trade wars of the 21st century reflect a complex balance between protecting national interests and preserving global stability. The key to progress lies in adopting a cooperative and sustainable approach that, beyond immediate economic benefits, also considers collective well-being and international cohesion in the medium and long term.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The commitment to free trade is based on the competitive advantage that nations gain from possessing certain material and human resources that are scarce in other countries. The exchange of goods under the umbrella of free trade results in a global benefit, as it fosters economic growth, improves the quality of goods, and diversifies supply. The free trade doctrine, which has governed international trade in recent decades, is opposed by protectionism, which seeks to favor domestic producers over foreign competition. Above All, Protectionism Trump's campaign to win votes from the U.S. automotive and agricultural sectors was based on extreme protectionism – which we could call the ‘Trump Doctrine’ – centered on the promise of raising tariffs on products from competing countries. The increase in tariffs to boost domestic production in non-competitive sectors clashes with the rules of the World Trade Organization and the already established trade relations with exporting countries. On the other hand, those who silently suffer from Trump's protectionist measures are American consumers, who will have to pay higher prices for imported products that are currently cheaper. The need to reorganize international trade flows had already been raised due to the existence of ecological, social, or economic dumping. In response to violations of competition rules and the presence of discriminatory situations, agricultural groups have demanded mirror clauses to ensure that imported products comply with the same regulations as domestic ones. However, all these proposals have been made within a negotiating framework and not in a disruptive and unilateral manner, as the Trump Doctrine does. Tariff Increases Specifically, the U.S. has formalized a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum from other countries, set to take effect on March 4. This impacts the Spanish industrial sector, which exports aluminum worth 500 million to the U.S. market. There are still no details on which Spanish agri-food products (such as wine, olive oil, meat, and dairy) may be affected and to what extent by the Trump Doctrine. Latin American countries are also at risk: in 2021, 86% of their agri-food exports were destined for three regions — the U.S. (23%), the EU (18%), and China (13%). The EU and Latin American countries belonging to Mercosur have the advantage of having signed an agreement in December 2024, which will allow them to strengthen their trade relations and potentially offset losses in the U.S. market. In response to these tariff attacks, countries have reacted by attempting to reach agreements among the affected nations. The European Union and Canada have met to design a joint strategy against the Trump Doctrine, and China is also considering reorganizing its trade flows, which could provide some relief for its exports. However, the damage caused by tariffs is global and does not only affect exporting countries. In the United States, there will be negative impacts on consumers and businesses in the form of higher prices and even shortages or the disappearance of some imported products. United States-Europe Trade Relations There is no free trade agreement between Europe and the United States, although an attempt was made, without success, to establish the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). However, progress has been made in harmonizing food safety regulations, quality standards, and data privacy rules. Nevertheless, Trump accuses Europe of "treating the United States very badly" and has warned that they must balance the "$350 billion" trade deficit. In Europe, the most exposed sectors to the threat of U.S. protectionism are aerospace, automotive, and agri-food. The countries at the highest risk include Germany (automotive), France (aerospace), the Netherlands (petrochemical), Italy (pharmaceutical), Ireland (technology), and Spain (agri-food), as they have the most open economies to foreign trade. On the other hand, the United States exports high-tech products, machinery, chemicals, and agricultural goods (corn, soy, meat) to Europe. In the digital sector, major U.S. companies (Amazon, Google, Apple, Meta) are well-positioned in the Old Continent, often engaging in market dominance abuses that the EU has attempted to curb through fines and legislative changes. Spanish exports to the United States focus on automobiles, machinery, and pharmaceutical and agri-food products (wine, olive oil, meat, dairy, and horticultural products). U.S. imports into the Spanish market primarily consist of machinery, electronic products, pharmaceuticals, financial services, and agricultural goods. The U.S. has invested in Spain in the automotive, technology, energy, distribution, and finance sectors. In turn, Spain has a presence in the North American market in the distribution sector (Inditex, Mango), renewable energy (Iberdrola, Acciona, Naturgy), communications, and infrastructure (Ferrovial, ACS, Sacyr). The Technological Battle A fierce competition is emerging in the development of space travel, military technology, and integrated artificial intelligence. In the geopolitical landscape, development cooperation, armed conflicts, climate change, and environmental sustainability are key issues to consider. We have just witnessed how restrictions on the supply of microprocessors stimulated China's creativity in the tech sector. China welcomed the new year with DeepSeek, its own AI model — with similar capabilities to ChatGPT but significantly lower costs — which has shaken the U.S. tech industry and triggered a stock market upheaval. Meanwhile, the EU is now trying to shake off its role as a mere spectator in the development of these new technologies and has just announced a €200 billion investment in the development of European AI. It is important to remember that Europe has been a pioneer in AI legislation, with the Artificial Intelligence Act approved by its Parliament at the end of 2023.  Outlook and Solutions The impact of trade wars depends, on one hand, on the measures imposed (tariff, fiscal, or regulatory) and the volume of existing trade flows. However, the characteristics of the regions, economic sectors, and affected social groups also play a crucial role. In the final countdown, before the implementation of the new tariffs, the United States reached a preliminary agreement with Mexico and Canada, granting a one-month pause before enforcing the announced tariffs. In the case of China, its response to the U.S. threat was to announce similar tariff increases on American products. Among European countries, there are different strategic approaches to the Trump Doctrine. The positions of the Paris-Berlin axis — ready to respond to U.S. tariff threats — and the Rome-Budapest axis are opposed. It remains to be seen whether Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who attended Trump's inauguration on January 20, will act as a mediator between the EU and the U.S. or if she will focus solely on securing a favorable position for Italy. Volatility, Uncertainty, Fluctuations A trade war affects foreign investments and creates volatility in financial markets due to the uncertainty it generates. Additionally, it reduces trade exchanges (imports-exports) and causes fluctuations in currency markets. The dilemma of “restructuring or rejection” posed by the Trump Doctrine involves the option of readjusting the existing order or entering into direct competition. For now, tensions remain high, and The Wall Street Journal, one of the major U.S. media outlets, describes the trade war as “absurd,” “unnecessary,” and “stupid.” The reality is that an atmosphere of international insecurity has been created regarding future investments, and stock markets have suffered losses. Meanwhile, the threatened countries insist they will enforce countermeasures, to which Trump responds by threatening to raise tariffs even further.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Valued at over $3 trillion, Nvidia, the world’s largest market capitalisation, exemplifies the transformative power of the microprocessor sector, but Europe’s lagging position raises significant concerns about sovereignty and competitiveness. Some companies are stepping up, offering concrete responses to these challenges and heralding a new era for European innovation in microprocessors. European socio-economic stability depends on it. A new era is fast approaching, with the US authorities having decided to strike a major blow by making it very difficult to export certain semiconductors, even to allied countries, thereby depriving half of Europe’s countries of easy access to US technologies. The global microprocessor market is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by unprecedented technological advances and intensifying geopolitical competition. Once considered a niche industry, microprocessors have become the backbone of modern economies, enabling everything from smartphones to artificial intelligence systems, from IoT to cloud computing. The rise of Nvidia, a global leader in AI, underscores this changing ecosystem. The company is set to replace Intel in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), who stated that the update aims to ensure “a more representative exposure to the semiconductors industry and the materials sector, respectively”. This dominance of a few global players underscores the challenges faced by other regions. While companies like Nvidia, AMD, and TSMC have set the standard for innovation, others—including once-mighty Intel—have struggled to keep up. Intel’s recent difficulties highlight the dynamic nature of the industry, where size and legacy alone no longer guarantee success. Instead, the ability to innovate, adapt, and secure supply chains is paramount. And initiatives are flourishing all around the world. As Europe works to bolster its presence in the microprocessor market, Latin America is emerging as a potential partner in the global semiconductor ecosystem. While the region does not yet have major microprocessor manufacturers, countries like Mexico and Brazil are becoming increasingly important in the broader supply chain. The United States, through initiatives such as the CHIPS Act, has sought to deepen its partnerships in Latin America, recognising the region’s strategic value for diversifying production and securing critical resources.  This should put Europe on alert. Indeed, the United States is planning on pushing forward with the development of microprocessor production capabilities across three Latin American countries: Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica. This strategy was unveiled by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in July 2024 as the ‘Western Hemisphere Semiconductor Initiative.’ Indeed, Mexico is attracting billions in investments in its semiconductor and tech industries. Amazon, announced plans to invest $6 billion in the country by 2026, creating over 50,000 jobs. The Chinese government had identified semiconductors as a priority as early as 1956 and has already channeled an estimated $150 billion to its semiconductor industry. Latin America’s potential lies in its ability to complement the global microprocessor market with assembly, testing, and raw material processing capabilities. Though the region has yet to produce a major semiconductor design firm, its role in the supply chain could expand as global players look to reduce dependency on Asia. This creates opportunities for regional collaboration and investment in the sector while strengthening US access to semiconductors. Indeed, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken stated: “By improving the backbone of our supply chains, better infrastructure will help ensure that the goods our people rely on – semiconductors, electric vehicle batteries, medical supplies – are more affordable, more secure, and made right here in the Americas.” Incoming President Donald Trump’s planned tariffs on foreign imports could however have a real effect on tech giants’ outsourcing of manufacturing to Latin America, though. Even the Biden administration, a few days before its term, has decided to raise the stakes on microprocessors by further tightening sanctions against China. This illustrates the great sensitivity of the subject on the other side of the Atlantic and the need for Europe to rearm itself on the industrial front. Europe’s position in the microprocessor market remains precarious, and without sufficient scope for nearshoring and the development of a robust EU-focused development ecosystem, it could find itself falling way behind global competitors. Historically reliant on foreign suppliers for semiconductors, the region has recognised these strategic risks of this dependency. For Europe, this means creating an ecosystem in which innovative startups and new, EU-based technological initiatives are allowed to flourish. That’s the objective of the European Union’s “Chips Act”, which aims to increase local production capacity and support the development of homegrown technology. However, achieving these goals requires more than policy—it demands the emergence of innovative companies capable of competing on a global scale. Europe already has some important technological “links”, but not yet the whole chain. Among those links of emerging players is SiPearl, a French company specialising in the design of high-performance microprocessors. While still small compared to global giants, SiPearl represents a concrete step toward reducing Europe’s technological dependency. Its processors, designed for use in data centres and supercomputing, align with Europe’s strategic goals for technological sovereignty and innovation. SiPearl’s reliance on Taiwanese manufacturing reflects the broader global interdependence of the microprocessor market, but its designs are uniquely European, tailored to meet the region’s regulatory and security standards. The choice of Taiwan seems obvious at present, given that the processes used in Europe do not meet the requirements. Alternative foundries may be needed, such as Samsung, which has production capacities in South Korea and the USA, or even Intel. Indeed, this Eurocentric approach is at the heart of the firm’s strategy for development. CEO Philippe Notton underscores how the Chips Act does not go far enough in supporting start-up firms like his own: “the European Chips Act is a good start. If we manage to mobilise more public funds in the semiconductor sector to get things moving again, as is being done in most countries, that will be a positive thing.” Notton, like many in the sector, believes that startups are, however, being left behind by this policy. Nonetheless, there are some positive initiatives to support the objectives of the European Chips Act, such as the $3.2 billion investment by Silicon Box to build a semiconductor plant in northern Italy. This announcement was made last March by the Italian Minister of Enterprises, who was happy to show that Italy can “attract the interest of global technology players”. Europe is focusing on fostering innovation and reducing dependency through public-private partnerships. SiPearl is a prime example, but it is not alone. Other European companies, such as Infineon Technologies (Germany) and STMicroelectronics (a Franco-Italian firm), are making significant contributions to the semiconductor industry. MELEXIS, another firm based in Belgium, plays a critical role in developing specialized chips for the automotive industry, supporting Europe’s push for technological sovereignty in key sectors. This approach has also supported the growth of companies such as ASML in the Netherlands, a global leader in lithography machines essential for microprocessor manufacturing, and GlobalFoundries in Germany, which operates one of Europe’s most advanced semiconductor fabrication facilities. CEO Dr. Thomas Caulfield, has a more positive outlook, and emphasised Europe’s strategic position in the semiconductor industry, particularly highlighting the continent’s leadership in lithography through companies like ASML. He stated:  “Europe shouldn’t worry over issues of technology leadership for two reasons. One: You can’t do anything in semiconductors without lithography and Europe has ASML the leader in lithography. Nobody can do anything in semiconductors without giving capex to ASML, so Europe has great control of the semiconductor industry.” This highlights the multilateral ecosystem many are trying to develop in Europe, because together, these firms demonstrate the continent’s potential to become a hub for advanced microprocessor design and production. The microprocessor market is at a crossroads, offering Europe distinct opportunities to redefine its role in the global technology ecosystem. Success, however, will depend on sustained investment, strategic partnerships, and bold innovation. By leveraging its strengths, Europe can be both a leading player in design and manufacture as it used to be just a few decades ago. The opportunities are massive, but so are the risks of falling behind. The rewards of such efforts are, however, substantial: enhanced economic growth, greater technological sovereignty, and a pivotal role in shaping the future of the global microprocessor industry. The text of this work is licensed under  a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Donald Trump seems to be turning tariffs, which can serve as a legitimate tool to achieve the goals of fair trade and the protection of key national security interests, into an illegitimate tool of coercive statecraft. It is likely to undermine the global economic order and US soft-power influence across the world Since re-entering the Oval Office Donald Trump has already threatened dozens of nations with economic tariffs in relation to a vast array of issues, many of which are non-economic in nature. What, if any, is the legal basis for these tariffs in domestic and international law, and how are they different from or similar to the type of economic measures China applies to influence other sovereign nations’ choices in ways that benefit Beijing? In this article we address these questions. Trumps weaponisation of trade tariffs Trump 2.0 seems set on following China’s leadership in the practice of using trade relations for economic coercion against other states, in breach of international and bilateral trade agreements. This practice decouples tariffs from their legitimate World Trade Organization (WTO) purpose of offering protection against unfair trade practices. WTO rules allow protective tariffs in cases of anti-dumping—for instance where foreign firms sell exports below their cost of production—or as countervailing measures against subsidised imports that would otherwise unfairly undercut and thus harm domestic producers. Such tariffs are a lawful tool for economic defence. Furthermore, in a geo-economic world there may be other limited situations where a reasonable argument can be made for using tariffs in a national security context not covered by WTO rules, or against economies that do not play by WTO rules. Moving beyond this delimited use of tariffs inevitably results in the tool becoming an economic cudgel for achieving non-economic political objectives. Where these are based on highly questionable claims regarding the relationship to US national security, and without basis in WTO or bilateral free trade agreement rules, the likelihood that tariffs are naked coercion rather than a legitimate defensive measure grows. Making a wide array of economic and non-economic demands of countries—including Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Denmark, Panama, Taiwan, and the EU—President Trump clearly views tariffs as the medicine for every international ailment, real or imagined, impacting the United States. This is a radical break from the US-led post-war order of rules-based trade, and sends a message that the US is no longer a trusted partner. This shift was most vividly highlighted on 1 February 2025, when Trump’s administration threatened 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and imposed a 10 percent tariff on China, citing a national emergency due to illegal migration and drugs, and claiming the target states had failed to assist the US in countering this emergency. While the Canada and Mexico tariffs were suspended after both countries made concessions to Trump, their situation is most indicative of Trump’s radical approach to international relations. Both countries renegotiated the North American free trade agreement directly with Trump during his first term—an agreement Trump lavished with praise, while Canada is also one of America’s closest military allies, and has supported many US military operations since WWII. If Canada can be coerced, it is reasonable to believe any country can be coerced by Trump, including Australia. From a foreign policy perspective, Trump’s radical tariff coercion is likely to be one of the greatest acts of diplomatic self-harm, particularly as friends are forced to start looking at ways to mitigate American dependence. Who pays the price of tariffs?    If the foreign policy results of tariffs are to undermine US soft power, it is also true that tariffs will undermine the US economy. For example, Trump incorrectly believes that exporters will absorb the additional cost of tariffs—for instance, taxes on imports—by dropping their prices. Factors such as price elasticity (are goods necessary or discretionary), pricing power (i.e. brand power), and the size of profit margins influence who pays additional tariff costs. The latter is important when considering globally competitive traded goods. In competitive industries where profit margins are low, at or near the minimum rate of profit at which businesses will invest and operate, then, by definition, all additional costs must be passed on to the consumer to protect the business’s margin. Beyond that, protecting margins is the first choice of all businesses. Hence only where goods are highly discretionary and existing profit margins are high might one expect the exporter to incur the costs of tariffs. All things being equal, the American consumer will pay if Trump levies general tariff taxes on a vast array of goods coming from Mexico, Canada, and China, just as studies show that consumers paid for Trump’s 2018 tariffs. Job losses can also arise as a consequence of tariffs impacting supply chains by increasing the costs of inputs. Economists argue that, while the first Trump administration’s 25 percent steel import tariff created around 1,000 new jobs in steel production, the higher cost of steel hit downstream steel users, resulting in a loss of 75,000 manufacturing jobs. A tariff policy that is targeted and in response to breaches of WTO trade rules has their rightful place in the repertoire of a state’s national economic policies. But there are likely to be few long-term benefits to attacking allies and longstanding rule-abiding trade partners with universal tariffs per Trump’s Make America Great Again agenda. On the contrary Trump’s policies will lead to a Make America Expensive Again outcome, as ABC’s Matt Bevan put it. A Corrosion of US soft power? The weaponisation of everything has in recent times been attributed to China’s unrestricted warfare paradigm. Trump 2.0 seems to follow Beijing’s playbook without further consideration for alliances and partnerships—pivotal to US foreign policy. Working with allies and partners has been a key element of how the Biden administration countered the challenges posed by Russia, China, and Iran in the wider context of great power competition. Donald Trump’s threats of a trade war against Denmark, a NATO ally, over the status of Greenland; threats against Taiwan’s steel, pharmaceutical, and semiconductor industries; tariff threats against more NATO allies in the European Union; and tariff threats against the BRICS bloc resemble the unrestricted weaponising of trade by Beijing and mark a departure from Trump 1.0’s more targeted tariffs. The US is facing the clear and present danger of losing its soft-power acumen, and losing trust from its partners, with tragic consequences for the global rules-based order. In that respect, Trump might be playing directly into the Moscow–Beijing ambition to undermine the US and its allies across the military, economic, and diplomatic domains. The ambiguity of Trump’s “negotiation” strategy, which contains both national security and economic objections as raison d’être, adds to the challenge of maintaining trust and confidence among partners and allies, which would be both tragic and fatal for the US and its alliances.This article was published under a Creative Commons Licence. For proper attribution, please refer to the original source

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском China has been gaining ground in the technological and trade war against the United States through strategic planning, massive investment in innovation, and control over supply chains. It has developed significant infrastructure and policies that have allowed it to advance in key sectors such as artificial intelligence, telecommunications, and semiconductor manufacturing. The bans imposed by the United States on China, far from slowing its technological progress, have acted as a catalyst for self-sufficiency and the accelerated growth of China's tech sector. Although the sanctions aimed to limit China's access to key technologies, in practice, they have driven investment in domestic development and strengthened the Asian country's determination to reduce its dependence on the West. The launch of DeepSeek represents a crucial step in China’s technological independence, particularly in the fields of artificial intelligence and advanced computing. Its design competes with processors from Nvidia and AMD, enhancing China’s capabilities in AI, big data, and supercomputing. Its development demonstrates that U.S. sanctions have not halted Chinese innovation; rather, they have accelerated self-sufficiency. DeepSeek could reduce China’s reliance on foreign technologies for advanced applications, strengthening its tech industry. Additionally, it boosts the ecosystem of startups and AI companies in the country, providing local alternatives to high-performance computing models. Its global impact could lead to a reconfiguration of the semiconductor market, challenging the dominance of Western companies. It also strengthens China’s position in the AI race, giving it advantages in strategic sectors. DeepSeek marks a turning point in the tech war and could change the dynamics of the global industry. Perhaps the clearest sign of DeepSeek’s impact on the West, beyond the stock market turmoil of American tech companies, is the news from El País, which biasedly headlines: “DeepSeek is no game: the threat to privacy from China's new AI. The massive downloads of the Asian country’s application expand the potential to control, disinform, and erode democratic principles.” This strategy is nothing new, just what the West has accustomed us to: “let’s cover up the defeat by smearing and defaming China to divert the debate”. The United States' Technological War Against China The United States' measures against China in the technological war have included sanctions and trade restrictions to halt its progress in strategic sectors. One of the main actions was the ban on exporting advanced chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment to Chinese companies such as Huawei and SMIC. Additionally, the U.S. has pressured countries like the Netherlands and Japan to limit the sale of advanced lithography machines, essential for producing cutting-edge chips. The U.S. has also blacklisted several Chinese companies, restricting their access to American technology. In telecommunications, it prohibited Huawei's involvement in the U.S. 5G infrastructure and encouraged its allies to do the same. In artificial intelligence, it imposed restrictions on the export of chips from Nvidia and AMD, which are essential for training advanced AI models. Washington has also restricted American investments in high-tech Chinese companies. Furthermore, it has pushed for the relocation of chip factories from Taiwan and South Korea to the U.S. to reduce dependence on China. Despite these measures, China has accelerated its self-sufficiency in key sectors, showcasing its ability to overcome these restrictions. The Background of China's Technological Breakthroughs Prior to DeepSeek Before the launch of DeepSeek, China's major technological breakthrough in the mobile device semiconductor industry was Huawei's Kirin 9000S chip. This processor surprised the world in 2023 when it was included in the Huawei Mate 60 Pro, marking a milestone in China's technological self-sufficiency. The Kirin 9000S, manufactured by SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation), became a symbol of resistance against the sanctions imposed by the United States. Huawei had been severely affected by restrictions on access to advanced chips from manufacturers like TSMC and Qualcomm, which seemed to limit its ability to compete in the high-end smartphone sector. However, the launch of the Mate 60 Pro demonstrated that China could produce advanced chips without relying on Western technology. This processor was manufactured using a 5-nanometer process, an impressive feat given that the United States had prohibited the export of advanced lithography equipment, such as those from the Dutch company ASML, which are essential to produce next-generation chips. The success of the Kirin 9000S alarmed the United States, as it showed that sanctions had not stopped China’s technological development. Washington began to tighten its restrictions even further, pressuring allied countries like the Netherlands and Japan to limit the export of semiconductor manufacturing technology to China. However, it has not succeeded in halting the progress of Huawei and SMIC, who continue to develop new versions of their chips. DeepSeek is just the tip of the iceberg DeepSeek is just the tip of the iceberg in the technological war between China and the United States, marking the beginning of a new era of self-sufficiency and innovation in semiconductors and artificial intelligence. Although it represents a significant advancement in advanced computing and AI models, it is just one piece of a much broader picture. China has been investing billions in the development of its own semiconductor industry, driving projects in advanced chips, supercomputers, and AI software that compete with giants like Nvidia, AMD, and Intel. The progress in semiconductors, reflected in the manufacturing of the Kirin 9000S and other high-performance chips, proves that China is becoming independent from Western technology. Additionally, the country is betting on quantum computing, advanced robotics, and the expansion of 6G networks, which could redefine global connectivity in the next decade. U.S. sanctions have accelerated this transformation, forcing China to develop domestic alternatives in key sectors such as software, operating systems, and AI infrastructure. Meanwhile, the Chinese government continues to drive the growth of local companies, strengthening its innovation ecosystem and reducing its reliance on foreign technology. On this path, China has developed a solid and rapidly expanding artificial intelligence ecosystem, with multiple companies competing globally. In addition to DeepSeek, several Chinese companies are leading the development of AI models, specialized chips, and advanced applications. Here are some of the most important ones: BaiduBaidu is one of China's tech giants with a strong focus on artificial intelligence. Its ERNIE Bot 4.0 model is China's response to ChatGPT and has been integrated into multiple applications, from search engines to virtual assistants. Baidu also leads in autonomous vehicles and in the development of AI chips like the Kunlun AI chip. Alibaba Cloud (DAMO Academy)Alibaba, through its DAMO Academy division, has developed the Qwen 2.5-Max model, its own generative AI that competes with OpenAI. Alibaba has also created AI hardware and provides cloud services that support the development of Chinese AI startups. Tencent AI LabTencent, the giant in video games and social networks, is investing in AI for gaming, chatbots, and language models. Its AI is used in platforms like WeChat and in data analysis for entertainment and advertising. ByteDanceThe Doubao 1.5 Pro model from TikTok's parent company competes with ChatGPT-4 in knowledge retention, programming, reasoning, and processing. IFLYTEK, SenseTime, Megvii, 4Paradigm, Cambricon, Horizon Robotics, Zhipu AI, and others are leading companies competing in the Chinese AI market. In summary, U.S. sanctions against China in the tech war have failed to stop the country's progress. Instead of weakening its companies, the restrictions have accelerated China's self-sufficiency in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and telecommunications. Huawei shocked the world with the launch of the Kirin 9000S, while companies like DeepSeek, Baidu, Alibaba, and SenseTime have created competitive AI models. Manufacturers like Cambricon and Horizon Robotics have grown rapidly, all driving China's global influence in 5G, AI, and electric vehicles. China's Key: It Seeks Only the Progress of Humanity, Not Political Dominance China's success in technology and the global economy has been built on a strategy of sustainable development, innovation, and self-sufficiency, focusing on the progress of humanity rather than the pursuit of absolute dominance. Unlike the sanctions and restrictions policy that has characterized the U.S. strategy, China has chosen to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology to drive the growth of its country and contribute to global advancement. DeepSeek's open-source code is an example of China's commitment to collaborative development in artificial intelligence, allowing global researchers and companies to access its technology. By making its architecture public, China fosters innovation and reduces reliance on closed models like those of OpenAI and Google. This strategy strengthens the AI ecosystem and promotes more equitable development worldwide. While some powers seek to maintain their leadership through sanctions and restrictions, China has demonstrated that development based on investment, innovation, and international cooperation is more effective. Its success is not the result of a race for dominance, but a strategy focused on work, research, and development, which in the long-term benefits both its own population and the global community.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Indonesia’s inclusion in BRICS enhances the representation of the Global South and strengthens efforts to reform global governance institutions. This move positions the bloc as a stronger platform for collaboration among developing nations. On 7 January, Indonesia officially joined the BRICS grouping. In welcoming Indonesia, the Brazilian Government issued a statement, saying: “With the largest population and economy in Southeast Asia, Indonesia shares with other members a commitment to reforming global governance institutions and contributes positively to deepening South-South cooperation.” With full membership, Indonesia has become the first country in Southeast Asia to join BRICS. Currently, Thailand and Malaysia are official partners, but not full members. Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its statement said the BRICS membership is “a strategic step to improve the collaborations and cooperation with other developing nations, based on the principle of equality, mutual respect, and sustainable development.” Economically, this could mean an increase of 0.3 percent growth to GDP, and the expansion of Indonesia’s access to BRICS markets. Geopolitically, it provides Indonesia a bargaining position in the global arena as well as a platform to voice the aspirations of the Global South. For BRICS, Indonesia’s membership adds another feather to its hat by bringing in greater representation of the Global South to its multipolar vision. This makes it imperative to assess the trajectory of the grouping. What started as an acronym “BRIC,” coined by Jim O’Neill in 2001 in the report “Building Better Global Economic BRICs,” the grouping was projected in the next decade to grow significantly. Founded in 2009 by the four countries—Brazil, Russia, China, and India—the bloc’s first expansion came in 2010 with the joining of South Africa. In the last 16 years, BRICS has graduated from being a popular buzz word in international politics to a significant platform of emerging economies representing the “Global South.” What is noteworthy is that BRICS is not yet a formal multilateral organisation like the United Nations, World Bank or the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), but increasingly there has been a greater demand among states (mostly developing countries) to join this club of emerging economies. Despite its informality, what made BRICS relevant in the international order was the 2008 financial crises, which raised scepticism and concerns over the dollar-dominated monetary system. This invariably challenged the effectiveness of the West-led Bretton Woods institutions given the suffering of the United States and Europe in the wake of the financial crisis. In contrast, the BRICS economies showed resilience. The first BRIC summit was held in Yekaterinburg in 2009, where the Joint Declaration put forward the desire of BRIC countries to develop “an incremental, proactive, pragmatic, open, and transparent dialogue and cooperation” that is “conducive not only to serving common interests of emerging market economies and developing countries, but also to building a harmonious world of lasting peace and common prosperity.” This was reaffirmed at the most recent 16th BRICS Summit held in October 2024 in Kazan. With the indicative expansion of its institutional framework and functionaries since 2009, the most significant outputs have been the New Development Bank (NDB), which provides developmental funds to countries; the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) with a resource pool of US$100 billion, which provides a mutual support mechanism for short-term balance of payments pressures, enhancing the financial safety net of member countries; and the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership 2025 for effective integration of BRICS enterprises into global and regional value chains. A significant milestone was the call, during the 15th BRICS Summit in Johannesburg in 2023, for the expansion of BRICS by inviting new states to join. Another, in 2024, was the deliberation on the formation of the BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative (also known as BRICS Pay), where BRICS countries would trade with each other without converting to US dollars by utilising blockchain technology and tokens to circumvent the SWIFT financial payment system. Although BRICS Pay is still only a concept, its development would seriously undermine the US dollar’s long-standing dominance. Today, the inter-governmental organisation boasts of 10 full members with the inclusion of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates in January 2024, and Indonesia in January 2025; and has nine official partner countries—Nigeria is the ninth partner country of BRICS (admitted on 17 January 2025), joining Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. Statistically put, BRICS member countries comprise about 45 percent of the world’s population, 28 percent of the global economy, and collectively they produce more than a third of the world’s crude oil. And if Saudi Arabia joins the group (which it is yet to consider the BRICS invitation), the grouping would then produce some 43 percent of global crude oil. This growth among emerging nations is set to widen the gap between BRICS+ and the G7 nations. As IMF estimates suggest, BRICS+ will account for 37.6 percent of world GDP at purchasing power parity in 2027, compared with 28.2 percent for the G7. This will signify a shift in economic power towards emerging economies, enhance intra-BRICS trade and regional networks rather than relying on G7 markets, and also lead to the creation of alternate alliances and institutions. Apart from expanding its membership, BRICS has also broadened its agenda beyond economics to include global challenges. The two main pillars of BRICS are practical cooperation in various fields through meetings of Working Groups and Senior Officials, and consultation on matters of shared interests through meetings of Leaders and Ministers of Finance, Trade, Health, Science & Technology, Education, Agriculture, Communication, and Labour, among others. The intra-BRICS collaboration now includes social welfare, intellectual property, tourism, science & technology, culture, outer space, think tanks, and internet governance and security. With BRICS+, emerging economies are establishing new standards for order making. In other words, despite its informal existence, BRICS has emerged as a strong contestant for building an alternative discourse on global governance—one that is non-western. The expansion gives BRICS a greater economic and demographic weight as well as a stronger voice to the Global South, potentially reshaping discussions in institutions like the UN and WTO. However, the long-term success of an expanded BRICS will depend on its ability to balance diverse interests and act as a unified voice on the global stage. This article was published under a Creative Commons Licence. For proper attribution, please refer to the original source