Trump readies reciprocal tariffs as trade war fears mount
U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he plans to implement tariffs on all steel and aluminium imports, which will go into effect on March 12. Mexico, Canada, and the European Union condemned the plans. Japan and Australia publicly announced that they would seek an exemption from the tariff. This follows Trump imposing a 10% tariff on China and agreeing to delay a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada. He has also threatened to impose tariffs on the EU in the future.
Manufacturing heavy firms warn that the tariffs will affect entire supply chains and damage businesses that rely on imports. Company executives have warned of increased costs that would be passed on to consumers. Meanwhile, European steelmakers are afraid of cheap steel entering the European market, with some European steelmakers calling for the EU to curb imports and prepare countermeasures in case of Trump’s tariffs.
Many are wondering what Trump’s goal is with his tariff policy. We can better understand Trump’s vision for tariffs by looking at past American history and tariff policy. In particular, Trump has frequently cited former U.S. president William McKinley as one of his idols. He invoked McKinley in his speeches, praising McKinley’s tariff policy. Trump would even rename Mount Denali to Mount McKinley. The mountain was recognised as Mount McKinley for nearly a century but was renamed under the presidency of Barack Obama, in 2015, something Trump vehemently opposed.
McKinley was famously a major proponent of tariffs. He was the architect of the McKinley tariff in Congress and supported high tariffs throughout his first term. In his inaugural address, McKinley called for special attention to the re-enactment and extension of the reciprocity principle.
Reciprocity is the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit. McKinley saw tariffs as a negotiating tactic, offering to lower tariffs on countries that reduced their tariffs on American goods. Trump seems to have taken from McKinley the idea of tariffs as a negotiating tactic.
However, while McKinley would, shortly before his death, come to advocate against high tariffs and push for the U.S. to be a more open economy, Trump continues to advocate for tariffs as a means of both protecting U.S. industry and putting pressure on negotiations against foreign countries. Additionally, while McKinley used tariffs mainly for economic purposes, Trump has utilised them to pursue his goals, particularly in drug and migration policies. This was seen when, as part of the deal Trump made with Mexico and Canada, the primary demand was increasing border security to stop the flow of fentanyl and undocumented migrants.
While tariffs are not new in U.S. policy, they have not been used so vociferously for decades. When tariffs were used the way Trump wanted to, the U.S. was not nearly as connected to the global economy as it is today. Trump’s aggressive trade policy risks alienating and undermining various alliances the U.S. built over several decades. While Trump can emulate the tariff policies of the 19th century, the consequences for the U.S. and the world will be much different from the days of McKinley.
Canada’s Liberal party was left for dead, but Trump might have just given it a second chance
Canada is set for an election later this year, and until now, polling has shown that a Conservative victory is a given. Trudeau’s most recent term has been marked by a consistently increasing cost of living in Canada. A massive housing shortage coupled with rising basic necessities costs meant fewer Canadians began to approve of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the ruling Liberal Party.
However, in the last month, Canada’s neighbour, the U.S., has threatened to impose tariffs on it. U.S. President Donald Trump even joked about turning Canada into the 51st state of the U.S. and threatened economic pressure through his tariffs.
While much of the attention around Trump’s threats has been on the geopolitical implications, less attention has been focused on the impact on domestic Canadian politics. Since the end of December, the Liberal Party of Trudeau has jumped more than 10% in polling averages. In Canada, the polarised partisan atmosphere that propelled Conservatives under their current leader, Pierre Pollivere, to a crushing lead over the Liberal Party has evaporated as Canadian patriotism takes centre stage.
This can also be seen in Quebec, where support for independence has declined massively. Nationalist Party, the Bloc Quebecois, has seen a decline of 2% in polling averages this past month. The percentage of Quebecois citizens who say they are proud to be Canadian has also increased recently.
The threats are coupled with Trudeau resigning and not stepping forward to lead the Liberals in the next election. Additionally, the two leading Liberal candidates say they will not continue the unpopular Carbon Tax, one of Trudeau’s most unpopular policies. Trump’s threats have made the next Canadian election about who is best equipped to deal with Trump, and not, as the Conservatives hoped, a referendum on Justin Trudeau.
Canada is undergoing a rally around the flag effect, where nationalism increases when a country is threatened or attacked by a foreign country or entity. Many examples of this occurred historically. President George W. Bush’s approval increased from 51% to 90% immediately following the September 11th attacks in 2001. 1980, Iran was in chaos following an Islamic Revolution and a power struggle. However, when Iran’s neighbour, Iraq, attacked, it mobilised a divided Iranian society to resist the Iraqi invasion.
While the U.S. has not attacked Canada directly yet, the threats and belligerent rhetoric by Trump have awakened a large current of Canadian nationalism and anti-Americanism. While the Conservatives sought to utilise the unpopularity of the incumbent Trudeau, they must change their strategy to prevent a Liberal upset in the elections later this year.
Israel threatens to resume war against Hamas if it fails to release hostages by Saturday
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has issued an ultimatum that if the Palestinian militant group Hamas does not release Israeli hostages by midday on Saturday, Israel will resume intensive fighting. This comes after the government ordered the Israeli Defence Forces to surround the Gaza Strip.
The deal was implemented last month after nearly 15 months of fighting between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. This was the latest chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has fought multiple wars with Hamas in the nearly two decades the group has been in power in the Gaza Strip.
Israel had held control of the Gaza Strip since 1967, when it occupied the strip following its victory against Egypt and a coalition of Arab states in the Six-Day War. Until 2006, the Gaza Strip was led by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), later known as the Palestinian Authority (PA). That year, those frustrated with the direction of the PA propelled Hamas to an electoral victory in the Gaza Strip. While the PA and Hamas initially formed a unity government, this collapsed in a year.
Additionally, since then, Israel has elected governments that are increasingly more and more hardline on the issue of Gaza. This culminated with the attacks on October 7, 2023. In recent years, Israel has successfully negotiated a normalisation of relations with several Arab nations, including Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Sudan. Before the attacks and subsequent war, Israel was negotiating a normalisation of relations with Saudi Arabia. However, the war in Gaza has complicated the situation.
While many had hope for peace following the ceasefire last month, it is worth remembering that both the Israeli government and Hamas gained widespread support from their hardline stances. Israel’s right-wing government under Netanyahu speaks frequently about security and positions itself as Israel’s protector against terrorism. Hamas, meanwhile, portrays itself as the face of Palestinian liberation, rejecting the more conciliatory approach of the PA. It is this hardline attitude that partially drove it to organise the October 7th attacks.
Both the Israeli government and Hamas have agreed to ceasefires before; however, if we look at historical trends, even after a ceasefire agreement, it is not long before another conflict erupts. If the truce holds, it will be despite, not because of, the governing forces of Israel or the Gaza Strip.
Inside the divided coalition coming for the Green Deal
With climate change being a major priority of the European Union, the EU has implemented the European Green Deal, a set of initiatives to combat climate change, and aims to make Europe carbon neutral by 2050.
However, there is a coalition of those who wish to change or scrap specific rules within the Green Deal. Business leaders want to strip specific regulations and sanctions for polluters without revisiting EU climate goals. Centre-right parties across the continent are sympathetic to this goal, but many refuse to work with the far right, something they need to do to achieve this goal. However, the far right is growing across Europe and is forcing the Overton window in the direction it wants.
Since the foundation of the European Parliament, a centre-right coalition has existed between the European People’s Party, Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, and Renew Europe. However, this past election, the growth of the right-wing and far-right European Conservatives and Reformists Group and the Patriots for Europe Group denied these three groups a majority.
The growth of the far right is a consistent trend in EU politics. In some countries, old taboos have been broken, with the centre-right and far-right joining in coalitions in countries like Italy, the Netherlands, and Finland. In other countries, the centre-right relies on confidence and support from the far right, such as Sweden. However, in other countries, cooperation still remains taboo and a line that cannot be crossed, such as in Germany and Belgium.
On the European level, the centre-right remains divided about whether and how much to work with the far right.
The Green Deal has faced significant backlash since it was implemented, with many businesses complaining that it over-regulates them and contributes to the lack of productivity in the EU. The far-right’s growth further jeopardises the Green Deal as the revision and repeal of the deal is a possibility given the right-wing shift across Europe. However, the taboo of working with the far-right still exists within the EU and is preventing a stable coalition against the deal.
If this taboo breaks or the far right becomes too powerful to ignore, then the Green Deal and its proponents can expect a strong effort to oppose it and other climate legislation that seeks to regulate businesses and polluters.
Hegseth rules out NATO membership for Ukraine and says Europe must be responsible for country’s security
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has said that the war between Ukraine and Russia “must end” and called Ukrainian membership in NATO unrealistic. He followed up by stating that the U.S. will no longer prioritise European and Ukrainian security as the Trump administration shifts its attention to securing the U.S.’ own borders and deterring war with China.
Hegseth’s statement should not come as a shock to anyone who has followed U.S. political developments over the past 15 years. In 2011, the Obama administration began pursuing a “pivot to Asia” with the aim of combatting China. The U.S. views China as its greatest rival geopolitically and thus wants to tailor its foreign policy to combat it.
However, while the main focus turned to Asia, the U.S. remained engaged in Europe, with the Obama administration taking a role in facilitating the Minsk Agreements along with partners in the European Union. During the Biden administration, when the full-scale war broke out following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. and its European allies provided Ukraine with a plethora of both military and non-military aid. Even in Trump’s first term, the U.S. continued supporting Ukraine diplomatically and during its fight with Russian-backed separatists in the Donbas.
However, since the full-scale invasion, the topic of Ukraine aid has become increasingly partisan, with polls showing a clear divide between Democrats who mostly support giving aid to Ukraine and Republicans who mostly oppose it. This latest development by Hegseth continues an increasingly partisan political landscape and a newfound sense of isolationism and nationalism.
However, Hegseth’s message to the EU and Ukraine is clear. The EU and Ukraine are responsible for defending Ukraine and EU member states from Russia. The U.S.’ traditional European partners can no longer rely on Washington to take a leadership role in European affairs. This means the bloc must reevaluate its strategic objectives and how to facilitate a united front.
East Germany is a far-right stronghold — and economic concerns helped make it happen
As Germany braces for an election next Sunday, the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland (AFD) consistently comes in second place behind the centre-right Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (CDU). However, the AFD dominates the polls in one region and remains consistently in first.
That is the territory of the former German Democratic Republic or East Germany. In this region, the AFD has consistently placed first, and projections show they are set to win the vast majority of constituencies.
But why is the region such a stronghold for the far right? While there are multiple reasons, one cannot underestimate the impact economics has on this phenomenon. Since reunification, economic insecurity has been a factor for the population of the former East Germany. This insecurity previously led them to support Die Linke, a Democratic Socialist party, and its predecessor parties.
However, Die Linke has shifted toward a more progressive direction in recent years and failed to rally its old base. Instead, economic insecurity has fuelled rising anti-immigration sentiments. The AFD capitalised on this following the Syrian Refugee Crisis, becoming the main opposition from 2017 to 2021.
However, their support remained stagnant for a period starting before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, with the war in Ukraine and the subsequent cost-of-living crisis, increasing energy costs, and increasingly negative opinions on migration, they were able to propel themselves back into second place and are likely set to be the main opposition in the next German parliament.
This is increasingly pronounced in the East, where perceptions of the economy remain negative. The AFD has successfully branded itself as the party of those left behind, even though East Germany has seen more growth than the West and living standards are no longer substantially below the West.
However, perception remains key, and East Germans still feel pessimistic regarding their future and economic prospects. In this pessimism, they turn to populist parties promising action and solutions. The AFD successfully capitalises on these economic anxieties and fears. Because of this, it is set to have a commanding lead in the former East Germany in next week’s election.
Leave a Reply