Last week saw leaders around the world trying to remember whether they were meant to take US President Donald Trump seriously, but not literally, or literally, but not seriously, and also wondering if they have a Greg Norman somewhere they could use.
When Trump announced early in the week he was going to levy a 25 percent tariff on steel and a 15 percent tariff on aluminum imports, he suggested it was to protect national security.
As with most Trump utterances, it left everyone trying to decipher just what he meant, because the US imports nearly half its steel from four nations — Canada, Brazil, South Korea and Mexico — which are hardly enemies of the US.
Was he doing this to attack China?
He did write a series of tweets that suggested trade with China is in his sights, but while China is the biggest producer of steel, it only exports a small percentage of it to the US.
Some of his other tweets suggested that Trump was instead targeting Europe, but again, hitting steel imports was an odd way to go about it — given Europe made it quickly obvious that it would retaliate with tariffs of its own — and the EU is one of the few economies with enough grunt not to get pushed around by the US.
Then came the suggestion that Trump was using this to negotiate with Canada and Mexico over the North American Free Trade Agreement — but that was also odd because that shot down his national security reasoning and opened the US up to retaliation under WTO rules (which would be likely anyway, given his national security reasoning was clearly bogus).
Using the threat of increasing tariffs in free-trade negotiations is a weird way to go about things.
The tariffs do hurt the nations that export steel and aluminum to the US, because they force them to charge more for their product, thereby giving US steel companies an advantage, but they also hurt the US.
Tariffs are effectively consumption taxes designed to give local industries an advantage (or at least an equal footing with international competitors) and they work by raising the price of imports.
Now that is great for the owners and possibly workers of those industries, but not so good for anyone else who wants to buy those goods, because now they have to pay more.
A tariff on steel and aluminum imports might help create a few extra jobs in the steel industry, but it also increases the price of all things made with steel and aluminum.
That leads to job losses in those industries and also reduces the living standards for everyone because suddenly they have to pay more for things such as canned goods, beer and cars.
One study suggested that for every job gained in the steel and aluminum industries, five would be lost elsewhere.
That does not mean all free trade is a win for everyone — and international trade does not occur in a textbook, but rather in the real world where governments subsidize and assist industries.
However, the general rule is that the costs to the economy increase with the size of the tariff and the number of industries affected (and similarly the benefits of lowering them reduce as the tariff gets closer to zero).
A 25 percent tariff on steel is therefore a rather hefty whack.
Trump is in effect going to the negotiating table with a massive weapon — a bit like taking a gun to a knife fight. The only problem is he has the gun aimed at his own foot.
So it was not a total surprise to see Trump back down and exempt Canada and Mexico, and then later give one to Australia.
As Australian Minister for Trade and Investment Steve Ciobo noted this week, Australian steel exports to the US amount to about 0.8 percent of the US market and aluminum exports account for about 1.5 percent — so exempting Australia makes little difference.
To that end, reports that Australia has engaged golfer and entrepreneur Greg Norman to do some lobbying on the nation’s behalf seem eminently sensible.
Not because Norman is some master trade negotiator, but because when dealing with Trump, nations always need to realize he is an insecure, ego-driven fool who needs praise for doing the most ordinary of activities, and who sees every discussion and issue through the prism of how it makes him look.
Norman is probably the only Australian Trump has heard of, and the fact that Norman is famous and successful and would be seeking a favor from Trump would appeal to Trump’s vanity.
Australia could bemoan the fact that the US electoral college system has selected this vainglorious ignoramus, or it can suck it up and use it to its advantage.
For now it appears his bluster of leveling tariffs for everyone is weakening.
Trump clearly believes this is the best way to negotiate trade deals — like any good swindler he will ignore the costs and talk only of the benefits.
The danger for Australia has always been not from a direct US tariff, but should retaliation come from Europe and China.
The last thing a small, open economy needs is for the large economies of the world to start playing like it is 1930.
For now everyone is trying to work out just what Trump is after — mostly he is after things that he can call a win (even if they are really not).
So nations will be thinking of things they can give Trump that do not matter so that he can claim victory in the negotiation, or they can see if Greg Norman is available for hire.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers